1951-11-08

DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Sarto Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl) presented the first report of the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and amendments thereto, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Bryce be substituted for that of Mr. Argue on the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and amendments thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is there to be a meeting of commonwealth finance ministers shortly? If so, what is the purpose of such meeting, and will the minister be attending?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Well, I received a message yesterday from the Chancellor of the Exchequer advising me that it was proposed, as had been planned by his predecessor, to hold a meeting of commonwealth finance ministers on January 15, I think, speaking from memory. I suppose the purpose of the meeting would be to discuss matters of common concern, as has happened in past meetings of this kind, relating more particularly perhaps to the members of the commonwealth that are members of the sterling area; but in any case the chancellor invited me to attend, and, as on previous occasions, it is my intention to attend.



TRADE WITH BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the announced intention
of the new government in Great Britain to cut imports from the dollar area by approximately $1 billion, what steps are the government taking to maintain Canadian exports, particularly exports of wheat, which are so essential to our western Canadian economy?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government has no particulars of the plans of the United Kingdom to reduce imports from Canada. As far as we are concerned, we have an understanding with the government of the United Kingdom that Britain will continue to buy her North American supplies of wheat from Canada. That practice is being followed. The imports of wheat by the United Kingdom are no greater than required for immediate consumption, and therefore I look for no reduction in that direction.
In general the imports from Canada are raw materials; metals, iron ore, lumber and materials of that type. Raw materials are generally in great demand throughout the world and I see nothing in the supply position of the United Kingdom that would lead me to believe that amounts taken from Canada can be reduced greatly. All materials of that type are readily saleable in world markets, and I cannot view the announcement with great alarm as far as the Canadian position is concerned.



INFLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Can the Prime Minister give an answer to the question that I asked him last Monday with respect to the calling of a conference to consider ways and means of dealing with inflation as suggested by the Canadian Association of Consumers?


Right Hon.  L. S.@: No decision has yet been reached in that regard, Mr. Speaker.



OLD AGE SECURITY TO PROVIDE FOR PENSIONS, WITHOUT MEANS TEST, AT AGE 70

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. 13, an act to provide for old age security.-The Minister of National Health and Welfare.
[Stage Direction]
Old Age Security
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. My point of order relates to the question as to whether or not the house should go into committee on the remaining sections of Bill No. 13, in view of the fact that they are sections which impose taxation, without the matter having first been considered in committee of ways and means. I wish to say a word or two on the point of order; and what I shall say relates only to the point of order itself.
I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that standing order 57 provides for the setting up of the committees of supply and ways and means. In the citations following that group of standing orders, I would, direct Your Honour's attention to citation 494 in Beauchesne's third edition, which reads:
The committee of ways and means provides the public income raised by the imposition of taxation-
That is the important part of that citation, and it states clearly that it is the committee of ways and means which has to do with the imposition of taxation.
Then I would ask Your Honour, as well, to refer to the citation in Bourinot's fourth edition where it deals with this same question. This is found at page 430, where it states, under the heading "The imposition of taxes, and ways and means", the following:
It is now a fixed principle of constitutional government that all propositions for the imposition of taxes should emanate from the ministry.
So far so good.


Mr. Fleming:: Or bad.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Or bad", as the hon. member for Eglinton says. Then I go on with the quotation, as follows:
The duty of the committee of ways and means-
And I emphasize that the reference is to the committee of ways and means.

is to consider how best to raise those portions of the public revenue necessary to meet the expenditure authorized by the grants of the committee of supply. The finance minister lays before the house, or the committee, his statement of the public revenue and requirements and explains his plans of meeting them, in the budget speech, and calls upon the committee of ways and means to report resolutions framed for the purpose of carrying his ideas into effect.
And similarly at page 437 of Bourinot's fourth edition I read this:
On the same principle any increase in the imposts should be made in committee of ways and means.
And likewise, at page 438 there is a lengthy paragraph with respect to duties. I emphasize the fact that taxation and duties are considered together in all these authorities.

The paragraph says that every new duty must be voted in committee of ways and means.
Then I find later, on page 439, under the section headed "Tax bills, bills founded on ways and means resolutions", the following:
When the resolutions amending the tariff, or imposing any charges upon the people, have been agreed to, they are embodied in one or more bills which should pass through the same stages as other bills.
The reference there is to the work being done by the committee of ways and means and, further down, reference is made to possible amendments which might have been made. Then appear the words:
Amendments to the bill which are not covered by resolutions of the committee of ways and means are out of order.
Then, turning to pages 404 and 405 is a lengthy paragraph, which I shall not read. This is that important reference in Bourinot to the traditional practice, in British and Canadian parliaments, of exercising all the checks and guards which the wisdom of English parliamentarians, in the course of centuries, has imposed upon the making of public expenditures or the imposing of taxation. The whole sense of these two or three pages is that before any burden or taxation can be imposed, full discussion through all the normal parliamentary machinery, must be had.
At page 415 of Bourinot there is a reference to the structure and purpose of the committees of supply and ways and means. From that page I read the following:
One of the principal purposes of the House of Commons is the consideration and criticism of the estimates and the taxes required to meet the public expenditures; and the committees of supply and ways and means are the parliamentary machinery through which the house chiefly exercises these political and constitutional functions.
Anyone who will look at that sentence will realize at once how those two ideas are set against each other. There is on the one hand the committee of supply to deal with expenditures, and on the other hand there is the committee of ways and means for taxation. In other words it is the committee of ways and means which has full control of taxation.
Then, lest there be any suggestion by any hon. member that all the references I have quoted thus far support my point only by inference, may I draw the attention of Your Honour to this categorical statement in Bourinot beginning at page 417, and carrying over to the top of page 418:
The committee of ways and means regulates the mode in which the expenditures authorized by the committee of supply are to be met. In other words it provides revenue or income necessary to pay the expenses of the public service. It is also in this committee-

And the reference is clearly to the committee of ways and means.
-that all propositions-
And it is completely inclusive.
-relating to the tariff and1 the taxation of the country must be considered.
And similarly at page 428 of the same volume:
It is usual to make the speech on the "budget" on the motion for the house to go into committee of ways and means since it is there that taxes are increased, repealed or otherwise amended.
So far I have drawn Your Honour's attention to the remarks on this subject by Beauchesne and Bourinot. I would also refer you to May, fourteenth edition, page 745. At this point the whole matter is dealt with very clearly. There is a heading half way down the page which reads, "Matters initiated by ways and means resolutions", and then after a sentence by way of preamble we find a subheading, "Taxation", and then the following:
A ways and means resolution is a necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax or an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already payers. According to present practice it is immaterial whether the tax is solely intended to provide revenue for the service of the year, or whether its primary purpose is to regulate imports.
And then May goes on to give several headings-"New taxation"; "Continuation of an expiring tax"; "Reimposition of a repealed tax"; "Increase in the rate of an existing tax"; "Extension of incidence of tax". Then he even goes on to deal with a subject, not before us today, namely, the repeal or reduction of taxation. He says that in every case there must be a ways and means resolution before any such tax change, particularly any imposition of taxation, is brought before parliament.
The bill we have before us is one, most of the sections of which have been dealt with in committee of the whole. There remain two sections.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Two and a half.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend from Eglinton says two and a half. But the half section he would add is not a taxation section, at least not primarily so. Anyway there remain two sections which are clearly taxation sections, on which the house is now being asked to go into committee of the whole.
My point is that the house is breaking the established tradition of the centuries, and breaking with the rules I have quoted from Beauchesne, Bourinot and May, if we go
Old Age Security
ahead with the imposition of this taxation without first having the matter dealt with in committee of ways and means.
On October 25 the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised this question, not as a point of order on which he sought a ruling, but in a tentative manner. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made an immediate reply to the question. He read standing order 60, which requires that any money bill be not dealt with immediately but that it be preceded by a resolution, to be dealt with in one of the committees of the whole house.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) suggested that that had been done with respect to this bill and that this procedure was approved by the law officers of the crown. May I point out that standing order 60 refers to money bills, that is, to bills that vote expenditures or vote money. Apart from these taxation sections Bill No. 13 is in that category. It is a money bill for which the only prior requirement is a proper resolution and the approval of the governor general. But Bill No. 13 is more than a money bill; it is a money bill in so far as it provides pensions, but it is also a taxation bill, which is a different story and which makes it with respect to its taxation sections something not covered by standing order 60.
In view of all this I feel, as I have said, that the house should not go into committee of the whole on the remaining sections of this bill until there has first been an opportunity for the matter to be considered in committee of ways and means. Someone may say that this is merely a technicality, that after all we were in committee of the whole on the resolution previous to the bill and had an opportunity to question the minister. May I suggest that, among others, a difference between committee of the whole and committee of ways and means is that when the house has moved to go into committee of the whole on a resolution nothing can be discussed except the terms of that particular resolution. When there is a motion to go into committee of ways and means there is what is known as a budget debate which provides an opportunity to discuss the whole financial picture of the country and to present amendments, grievances and so on. The right to present amendments and grievances and the right to survey the whole financial picture of the country has been obviated by this method of dealing with this matter, that is, solely by resolution preceding the bill which was dealt with only in committee of the whole.

Old Age Security
It may be only a coincidence, but it is rather fortunate for the purposes of considering this point that we have concluded our discussions in committee of the whole of all sections of the bill except the taxation provisions. There is no question that as far as the rest of the bill is concerned-in other words, the sections providing the pension which we have already passed-everything is perfectly in order. But I feel that these taxation sections should have been the subject either of a separate bill or at least of a separate part of this bill. In either case, they should be dealt with only after being considered in committee of ways and means.
I have done a lot of thinking about these things in the years I have been here. I have browsed around a good deal in the records and I cannot find anything comparable to this. I have found plenty of money bills which were dealt with in the way that properly met the terms of standing order 60, but in all the research I have done I cannot find a case of a bill imposing taxation which was not dealt with in the traditional way required by the authorities, namely, introduced first of all by way of a resolution in committee of ways and means. I submit for Your Honour's consideration that that is what the house should do now before it proceeds further with the taxation aspects of the bill now before us.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, before you give your ruling perhaps I should say a word on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Let me say at once in all sincerity that I always enjoy these lectures on parliamentary procedure with which he entertains us from time to time and which obviously disclose the fact that he has spent a great deal of time and attention in studying the rules.
As he pointed out, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised this question the other evening when the bill was being given second reading. I indicated at that time that I understood the legislation had been approved by the law officers of the crown and passed on by the law clerk of the House of Commons. Without having before me any detailed memorandum I cited standing order 60 as justification for that procedure.
Following the raising of the question by the hon. member for Lake Centre I consulted the law clerk of the House of Commons. I have received from him a quite lengthy and most interesting memorandum outlining the authorities upon which he bases his view that the procedure adopted here is quite in order. I do not know that I should take

up the time of the house to read the memorandum, but it could be made available to any hon. member who might be interested.
In essence the memorandum states that while it is customary to consider in committee of ways and means the budget resolutions providing for the raising by tax or impost of the sums required to meet the grants voted by the committee of supply, it is not required that every bill containing taxing provisions be first considered by way of resolution in committee of ways and means. In support of this latter proposition there is cited the act to amend the Income War Tax Act, statutes of Canada, 1932-33, chapter 14, and the Salary Deduction Act, chapter 52 of the statutes of the same session, and numerous other acts of the parliament of Canada. The house will recall that the Income War Tax Act amendment was passed in Mr. Bennett's administration and related to special taxes that were being imposed. These precedents support the proposition that it is not necessary for a particular bill containing taxation provisions to be preceded by a resolution considered in committee of ways and means, although under standing order 60 there must be a reference to a "committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.''
The present bill is primarily a bill for the expenditure of money, namely, for "the payment of pensions without a means test of forty dollars a month" to qualified persons, and to set up a "fund made up of special contributions levied for that purpose." While it does contain ancillary taxing provisions, the procedure which has been followed under which the present bill was preceded by a resolution considered in committee of the whole is consistent with the authorities set forth in the memorandum from the law clerk to which I have referred. Numerous precedents are cited in that memorandum. I am informed, therefore, that the present procedure does not constitute a new precedent which would alter in any way our constitutional procedure. If the house is interested in this memorandum I could have it made an appendix to Votes and Proceedings or Hansard, or make it available in any way that was considered appropriate. That would be my submission in answer to the interesting point of procedure raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Does the minister consider that a precedent, even a bad one, should be followed in the house once it has been accepted?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not necessarily. The memorandum to which I have referred sets out a

number of precedents. As a good lawyer, I believe in the value of precedents. Where a point has been established, unless some particular reason is shown that it should not be accepted, I see no reason why it should be changed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I noted that the memorandum to which the minister referred stated that there were numerous precedents, but he gave just two, both of which occurred in the period 1930-35. I wonder if the memorandum indicates whether any point of order was raised about them at the time and, if so, on what basis any decision was made. As Your Honour has sometimes pointed out, a proposition that goes through the house without any question being raised as to its propriety is not necessarily a precedent which would establish the practice as being correct. It may be that a point was raised at the time and a satisfactory answer given. I notice that the Minister of Finance did not read the whole memorandum.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will be glad to do it, but
I just thought I should not take up the time of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that, and I imagine the minister will send me a copy shortly. But it seems to me that a noticeable lack is the failure to quote any authorities in support of the position. I have quoted very precise wording, particularly from Bourinot and May, which says that this cannot be done without going into committee of ways and means first. The Minister of Finance says that there are these precedents from the Bennett regime.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Before and after that; there is a long list of them here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the Minister of Finance gave only two and he still has not given any authoritative statements on the basis of which these bills were introduced. I may say that I do not see how we can get around Bourinot's statement on page 418 that it is in this committee that all propositions relating to the tariff and the taxation of the country must be considered. He took that from May and Todd. I have checked back and it certainly is there. Then there is a further development of the point by May on pages 745 and 746 of his fourteenth edition in which he spells out all the different kinds of taxation, and even the repeal of taxation. He leaves no loophole at all. He says that in every instance these taxation measures must be preceded by resolutions in committee of ways and means.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised is a very interesting and important
Old Age Security
one. He suggests that the committee of the whole should not proceed further to consider Bill No. 13 until the house has gone into committee of ways and means on certain sections which he has referred to as taxation sections. As I say, the point raised is indeed a very interesting and important one. As he has pointed out, there is a great difference between the committee of the whole and the committee of ways and means. On motion to go into committee of ways and means, as hon. members know, they have the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the house certain grievances. That is one very important difference.
The Minister of Finance has stated that there are many precedents for the procedure which has been followed in this case. I understand he is tabling an opinion to that effect which he has received from the law clerks. I would hesitate to interfere with the work of the committee of the whole at this stage. I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As he stated, the matter was mentioned in the house by the hon. member for Lake Centre either on the resolution stage or on second reading, I am not sure which; but in any event the question was raised at that time by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Therefore the house was aware of that point.
The bill received second reading, and with the house aware of the question as to whether or not the committee of ways and means should be set up, the house ordered that the whole bill be referred to the committee of the whole. The sections in dispute at present might have been considered the last time the bill was in committee of the whole. Then this motion could not have been made now. My point is that it is now too late to raise this question. It is a rule of the house that points of order must be raised at the time they occur in the house. In my opinion this point of order, especially after the question of procedure had been brought to the attention of the house, should have been raised at the time the motion was made for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon the bill. See Beauchesne, third edition, citation 112.
I repeat that the order passed by the house was that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole not on certain sections of the bill but on the whole bill. In view of that I would not rule at this time that the house cannot resolve itself into committee of the whole on the sections of the bill which it has not yet considered. I therefore leave the chair in accordance with the order which has been, read by the Clerk: "House again in committee of the whole".

Old Age Security
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 13, to provide for old age security- Mr. Martin-Mr. Dion in the chair.


The Chairman:: When the committee last considered this bill sections 1 to 9 were carried. Section 10 was allowed to stand, section 12 was carried, and section 13, subsection 1, was carried. Shall I call clause 10?
On section 13, subsection 2-Repeal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the committee rose last time we were considering subsection 2 of section 13 of the bill, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare had indicated that he was prepared to accept the amendment to this subsection which I proposed at that time. I do not know whether the minister is going to introduce the amendment now or whether he wishes me to do so.


Mr. Marlin:: I can readily do that. As my hon. friend has said, I agreed that the point my hon. friend took seemed in the circumstances to be valid. I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to move that section 13, subsection 2, be amended to read as follows:
The Old Age Pensions Act is repealed on a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I so move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure we all support the proposed change in the wording of this subclause. I rise to say a word with reference to the clause because it deals with the repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act. There is a question that arises in connection with the repeal of that act which is of concern to a great many of our old age pensioners, and I think that the people generally would welcome as explicit a statement about it as the Minister of National Health and Welfare can give. That it is a matter of wide interest is attested by a question that appeared on the order paper yesterday placed there by the hon. member for Pictou. As reported at page 789 of Hansard, he asked several questions, the fourth one of which was:
What will be the position of pensioners presently in receipt of pension under the Old' Age Pensions Act after it ceases to operate on December 31, 1951, with respect to liens which may now be placed against their property and claims for repayment which may now be lodged against their estates?
I am sure there is no question in the mind of anyone about this matter so far as pension payments to those 70 and over after January 1, 1952, are concerned. I am sure the country knows there will be no attachment of estates for any of this money, either for those who come on the pension afresh or for those who are transferred from the present means test pension to the old age security pension

which begins on January 1. But as to those who are now on the pension and have liens against their property, as to what is to happen to those liens and as to whether or not, when they die, anything will be collected from their estates for the pension they received prior to December 31, 1951, the position has not been cleared up. I was glad to see the question which the hon. member for Pictou placed on the order paper, and I awaited the answer with interest, hoping that it would clear up the point. But it does not clear it up at all. Here is the answer. It is to be found at page 789 of Hansard of yesterday. It is in the name of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
4. The present Old Age Pensions Act has never required the provincial authorities to place liens against the property of old age pensioners. Where liens have been filed against the property of pensioners, this has been done solely under the authority of provincial law: and it will, therefore, be for the provincial authorities to determine, as of December 31, 1951, the manner in which liens still in existence on that date are to be disposed of.
I think we should have an end of this blaming that has gone on, back and forth, between the dominion and the provinces with regard to these liens and to the whole question of recoveries.	That answer of
yesterday is one that skates around the problem because of the use of the word "liens" in the question asked by the hon. member for Pictou. Of course we know that liens can be placed only by the provincial authorities. That is a matter of property and civil rights. The federal government could not do it; neither could the federal government require the provinces to place liens. But the fact of the matter is that in the Old Age Pensions Act, which this subsection is about to repeal, there is a section which requires the provinces, by federal law, to make provision for recoveries. The manner in which those recoveries will be made is, of course, left to the provinces. Most of the provinces of Canada have felt that the only way in which they could carry out their written obligation to the federal government to make recoveries was by the imposition of liens. I know that in at least one province, namely British Columbia, that is not done. But in most, if not in all, of the rest of them, they have felt that that is the only way to do it. I think I should at this point put on record the relevant subsection of the Old Age Pensions Act, the one this subclause is repealing. It is section 9, subsection 2:
An agreement made pursuant to section three of this act shall include-
The word is "shall"; it is compulsory.
-an undertaking by the province that the pension authority will be authorized to recover out of the estate of any deceased pensioner, as a debt due

by the pensioner, the sum of the pension payments made to such pensioner from time to time and such agreement shall specify the circumstances under which recovery of such debt shall be made but shall provide . . .
And so on. It is a long sentence with certain other details, but I have given the pith of it, which is that, in order for a province to have had an agreement with Ottawa with respect to old age pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, it had to agree that provision would be made for recoveries. It is on the basis of that provision that the provinces have carried on in whatever way was most suitable to them, and that is the basis of the liens that have been applied.
Subsection 3 of that same section 9 deals with the question as to what was to happen when recoveries were made, and in legal and technical language what it says is that when a province makes recoveries out of the estate of a deceased pensioner the dominion government gets back pro rata its share-in other words, its 75 per cent of the money that it had put forward. So far, that is the picture. It is really quite clear, and the government does not get around it by sticking strictly to the word "liens" which was in the question of the hon. member for Pictou. The real issue is recoveries; and recoveries are required by federal statute.
However, the question now is this. What is going to happen in the matter of recoveries out of the estates of deceased pensioners with regard to the money they received prior to December 31, 1951? This section will repeal that act. It would seem to me that, when that act is repealed-at whatever date the governor in council decides-the federal government can no longer collect anything back from the provinces. Therefore further recoveries should cease.
I want to say that it is my own notion- and I give full credit to the federal government for this-that they do not want any further recoveries. But in the absence of a clear statement, the people are still wondering what is going to happen. We asked questions like this on June 21 and June 23 last session when the Old Age Assistance Act was before us, but we obtained no satisfaction. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the federal government, would now say that they do not want any recoveries after the end of this year, I think it would give a lead to the provinces, letting them know that they can cancel these liens forthwith.
I realize that the federal government cannot instruct the provinces to cancel the liens; but the federal government did not instruct the provinces to put on the liens. They just
Old Age Security
made them sign an agreement which put them in the position in which they pretty well had to do it. But they now could give a lead to the provinces. They could say: So far as Ottawa is concerned, we do not want our 75 per cent out of the estate of a deceased pensioner; we want to put the old age pensioners who are transferred from the present roll to the new roll in the same position with respect to money they have had prior to December 31, 1951, as they are with respect to money that they will receive after January 1, 1952.
As I say, I have had a great many letters about this matter. I would not hesitate to read to the house the replies that I have made, because they have had at least one kindly word to say-believe it or not-about this government. In them I have expressed the view that I have just now expressed, namely that I do not think Ottawa wants any recoveries but at the moment they are leaving it up to the provinces to make the decision. In my view if is incumbent upon this government to give a lead in the matter. In view of the letters I and other members have had, and from the question asked by the hon. member for Pictou yesterday it is clear that it is a problem that is on the doorstep of the government. I think a clear statement from the minister at the present time would put the federal government in a good light-and they do not mind, when they have a chance to do it, putting themselves in a good light- and would help to clear up this matter for the old age pensioners who are concerned, and in their name I express the hope an answer will now be given.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Coldwell:: Will the minister answer that question with regard to recoveries? It is an extremely important one.


Mr. Martin:: The question is not a difficult one in the main. My hon. friend in one breath thinks we have made too much of the fact that we are not responsible for putting liens on the estates of old age pensioners. From one point of view, that observation is correct. But the fact is that this government has been blamed repeatedly throughout the country, and many times in this house, for having allegedly imposed liens. I have examined twenty-seven speeches, made in the course of the last ten years, in which it was argued that liens had been put on the estates of old age pensioners as a result of action taken by the government of Canada. In view of that contention, it seemed only fair that there should be a denial; and that denial was made in answer to the question so pertinently put by the hon. member for Pictou.

Old Age Security
As to the question which my hon. friend finally asks in the course of his observations, that is a matter of course that depends upon the existing law. My hon. friend has made an interpretation as to what that law means. It also depends on the attitude to be taken by the provinces. We are now having some correspondence with the provinces. They have paid a portion of the pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act. Before a definitive answer can be given in that particular, it would be only fair that we should have ascertained the view of all the provinces. That view has not been ascertained; and until it has been ascertained, I would not be free to state what the position will be. But just as soon as that view is ascertained, I will unhesitatingly advise the house.
The situation as to the future is, as my hon. friend has said, that in respect of future recoveries under the Old Age Assistance Act no obligation will be imposed on any province to recover from the estates of old age pensioners in respect of overpayment of one kind or another. The only qualification is that if a province, in the exercise of its discretion, should make such recovery-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is under the Old Age Assistance Act?


Murdo William Martin: -under the Old Age Assistance Act, it would only be fair that the jurisdiction of government contributing 50 per cent should share in it. I may say to my hon. friend that just as soon as the question has been resolved the government's attitude and policy will be made known.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May it not be said that once the Old Age Pensions Act is repealed, as is called for by the section now before the house, it will no longer be possible for the federal government to collect any of its portion of the recoveries referred to under subsection 3 of section 9 of the act which will then be dead.


Murdo William Martin: It is- not the function of parliament to advise as to what the law is. The matter is in the hands of the Department of Justice now, and there is a wide variation of view as to the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, subsection 2, as amended, agreed to.
On section 13, subsection 3-Consumption or sales tax of 8 per centum.
Donald Methuen Fleming: On subsection 3, there is a point I have to put to the Minister of Finance which is different from the one raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre on the point of order he took this afternoon before the Speaker left the chair. It seems to me -that this section is quite different from the other sections in the bill. It has nothing to do with universal old age pensions. It is an amend-
[Mr. Martin.!
ment of another act consequent upon certain of the financial provisions in this bill. It seems wrong to me to be cluttering up this bill for all time with a section which amends another act quite apart from the Old Age Security Act. I would urge upon the minister that this type of provision should have been made the subject matter of a separate bill having for its purpose the amendment of the Excise Tax Act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As the hon. member indicates, that might have been done. It is a matter of opinion as to whether that would have been a tidier way of proceeding. I must say that my own view is that the procedure which is being followed here is completely unobjectionable. It is quite clear what the purpose of the section is, and it is quite clear in what way it is related to the enactment of the special 2 per cent sales tax, -the proceeds of which are to be paid into this fund. It could have been the subject of a separate act, but it seems to me that would have been making one extra statute merely for the purpose of making a little tidier looking bill. I cannot attach greater importance to it than that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It just struck me -that you were going to clutter up the act for -all time by inserting a section which has nothing to do with old age security.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not imagine anyone will pay any attention to that section after this year.
Section 13, subsection 3, agreed to.
Section 13, subsection 4, agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to say a few words about section 10, which provides for taxation for old age security along the lines outlined by the Minister of Finance when he first spoke on this measure on October 25. I have indicated already my displeasure with some of the provisions of this headache pill which he 'has given to us-this 2-2-2 which sounds like a Frosst, although maybe that is getting too close to something that is happening in this province at the present time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They will send you a free bottle.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In particular, I have objected to the extent to which the burden of the cost of this measure is to be placed upon those who pay through the medium of the sales tax. From the speeches he has given, the minister has made it clear that he will be collecting about 47-5 per cent of his revenue for the old age security fund from the sales tax. I object to that arrangement and I have made other comments about the taxation provisions, but the one that I singled out for

particular complaint is the proposal of the minister to limit the 2 per cent tax on a taxpayer's taxable income to the sum of $60 per year.
As I pointed out earlier, the effect of that part of the section is to provide for a 2 per cent old age security tax on the taxable income of taxpayers. In other words, a married man earning $3000 per year, and having a wife and two children and thereby getting a total exemption of $2300, pays 2 per cent on the remaining $700 or $14 per year. Similarly a married man without any children earning $5000 per year has an exemption of $2000 and pays 2 per cent on the other $3000 which amounts to $60 per year. But from there on up there is no additional old age security tax as such. The reason I add those words "as such" is the fact that I am aware of the point the minister tries to make, namely that the wealthiest people will be paying more through their purchases of goods on which the sales tax applies.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that no matter how much the wealthy might pay in that way the minister cannot get away from the unfairness of a system of taxation which says that a millionaire is not going to pay into the old age security fund any more than a man with a taxable income of $3000. This $60 limit is wrong, in my opinion, and indefensible. The minister sought to defend it by citing the idea of an annuity. He pointed out that $60 per year was approximately the amount that a man 30 years of age would have to pay from then until age 70 so as to purchase an annuity of $40 per month at age 70. I am not going to develop the argument at length which I did place before the house on November 1 as to the consequences that flow from that argument. It means that the Minister of Finance prefers the benefit or insurance principle. He admitted that if it were not so harsh and impracticable that would be his preference, the benefit or insurance principle, on the basis of which he would make everyone pay for what he is going to get by way of old age security, and would give to each person only such old age security as he himself had paid for.
As I pointed out, that principle was rejected by the committee and also by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In bringing in the bill, he underlined that objection. He spoke with great pride of the fact that Canada was providing a universal pension which is based on the idea that everyone gets the same pension, and it is paid for on a pay-as-you-go basis by all those who are working at the time. My contention is that the Minister of Finance vitiates that universal principle. And
Old Age Security
he admits it. He claims justification for doing so. This annuity idea vitiates that principle when he places this maximum on the amount that the wealthy are required to pay. The result of course is the relieving of the wealthy from the obligation to pay taxation on the whole of their income, and that in turn places more of a burden on those in the lower brackets so far as income tax is concerned and upon those who pay through the medium of sales tax. I feel that rather than resort to the sales tax, at least to the full extent that the minister has gone, rather than resort to the 2 per cent tax on the first dollars over the exemption level where 1 per cent would have been enough, the minister should have imposed either a proportionate tax without a maximum limit or preferably a graduated tax.
I pointed out on November 1 that this matter came in for some slight attention in the committee on old age security which met last year. I indicated, to the amazement of the hon. member for Eglinton, his part in the discussion which consisted only of questions, but I thought they were quite leading questions. I also pointed out that the hon. member for Spadina agreed wholeheartedly with me that in the field of old age security there was no reason for departing from the principle of taxation established for other government purposes, which is on a graduated basis. The records of that committee show, so far as the hon. member for Spadina and I are concerned, that we favoured graduated taxation; in other words, increasing the rates as you go up to the higher brackets. The hon. member for Eglinton expressed, or his questions did, what I thought was amazement at the idea of a ceiling of this kind. It all depends on the tone of voice. Whether his questions are read in his tone of voice or mine, at any rate the record is there for all to read, and I am pointing out that the two of us who did comment rather fully on the point, the hon. member for Spadina and I, were quite definite that we felt it should be graduated taxation instead of proportionate. The discussion we had was with an official of the Department of Finance who did seem to favour proportional taxation rather than graduated taxation for old age security purposes. And of course it was he who presented to us the idea of having the maximum figure. Well, as I said last week, the Department of Finance has won rather than the members of parliament, but I am indeed sorry to see that maximum in there. I am sure that the people of Canada will be surprised, for they thought this was a plan whereby people would pay into it according to their ability, and then would receive the benefit on a universal basis

Old Age Security
at the age of 70. Here the concept of ability to pay has been cut off at this $60 level. Not only will many people on lesser amounts be amazed to learn that wealthy people pay not more than $60 a year into this fund, but I am sure that wealthy people will be surprised, and of course pleasantly surprised, that that is the case.
I have dealt with this matter on two previous occasions. It first came to our attention as a surprise on October 25, two weeks ago. In the debate immediately thereafter I protested and expressed the hope that this provision would be changed. When the bill came before us for discussion on November 1 no change had been made. I protested again. Now that we are in committee on this section I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the committee should face up to this issue; indeed, that the committee should ask for the removal of this limitation of $60. To bring the matter to a head, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to clause 10. The amendment is necessarily a bit wordy, but I will explain the effect, which is very simple. I move:
That section 10, subsection 3, of Bill No. 13 be amended by deleting from line 39 the words "the lesser of'' and also by deleting from line 41 the word "or" and by deleting from line 42 the words "sixty dollars."
You will note, Mr. Chairman, the result of that will be to leave subparagraph 3 reading as follows:
(3) Every individual liable to pay tax under part
1	of the Income Tax Act for a taxation year shall pay an old age security tax for the year equal to
2	per centum of the taxpayer's taxable income for the year.
In other words, the effect of my amendment is not to make any change in that 2 per cent rate, although I might like to. In fact I would like to see it changed into a graduated tax, 1 per cent on the lower brackets and moving on up to higher rates in the higher brackets, but I can see difficulties, and I am not trying to suggest an amendment on that point at this time. The only change I am presenting in this amendment is that the 2 per cent tax on taxable income be applied across the board; the wealthy people paying not just $60 but 2 per cent on the whole of their taxable income.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, it is perhaps no surprise to you that I raise the same point of order that I have raised on so many occasions. This is unquestionably a money bill. The amendment which is proposed by my hon. friend will unquestionably affect the amount of money which is to be levied on the subject and raised under the provisions of this bill. According to the citation, which I have not before me but which I have cited

to you so often before, I respectfully submit that the amendment is out of order.


Mr. Cruickshank:: May I ask a question?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I am very doubtful about the amendment. Therefore I shall hear any hon. member who has something to say on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that not very long ago-this very day- I raised the question as to whether we should not have gone into committee of ways and means on this bill. The Minister of Finance says that my proposal would result in the imposition of a tax on certain people, which is not provided in the bill. Mr. Chairman, it has already been ruled that so far as this bill is concerned that can be done without going into committee of ways and means.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say anything about the committee of ways and means.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When he was speaking to the previous point of order the Minister of Finance said that this was not a tax bill in the ordinary sense, and that was part of the basis on which he contended that a ways and means resolution was not necessary. I think we should be fair about these things. Rules should apply both ways. If it is not a tax bill in the ordinary sense when the minister brings it in, I do not think he can now say it is a tax bill because I want to move an amendment to it. Incidentally the resolution preceding this bill, the resolution that we considered not in the committee of ways and means but in the committee of the whole, did not specify the taxation that was to be imposed. The minister knows that when he brings in his normal budget resolutions preceding the budget bills he spells out in those budget resolutions what the tax changes are to be. He does that because there is a citation in Beauchesne which says that if the prior resolution does not fix a limit it is open to a private member to propose changes when we get into committee of the whole.
Here we are, Mr. Chairman, debating a bill which I contended was a taxation bill, and I argued that we should have gone into committee of ways and means before dealing with these taxation sections. The decision was made that it is not. The Minister of Finance argued that it is not an ordinary taxation bill. So I treat it as a bill which is not an ordinary taxation bill. I take it at its face value as an ordinary bill preceded by a resolution in blanket form, and I claim my right on that basis to propose a change of this kind, and now the minister wants the rule reversed.
May I point out that the change I propose certainly does not cost the government any

money. The minister does not say that, but we might as well have it clear. It will result, as a matter of fact, in additional money coming to the treasury, unless steps are taken by the government to reduce taxation at some other point so as to level it out. I thought of trying to word my amendment in that way; but we have had rulings in the past year or so to the effect that we are denied the right to do that.
May I remind the committee that once a tax is being considered by the committee of the house, it is open to private members to make suggestions for changes. Again I turn to Bourinot, fourth edition, page 431, where it says:
It Is also competent for any member to propose another scheme of taxation for the same purpose, as a substitute for the government plan.
And then follows a sentence containing two negatives, so that one has to think in term9 of double negatives in order to sort it out. It says:
But it is not regular to propose a new and distinct tax, which is not a mere increase or diminution of a duty upon an article already recommended by government for taxation, though it is the function of this committee to impose rather than to repeal taxes.
Well, if it is not regular to propose a new and distinct tax, which is not a mere increase or diminution, then the meaning of that sentence is that it is regular to propose an increase or diminution in taxation proposed by the government. The government has proposed a 2 per cent tax on taxable incomes of taxpayers above the exemption level. The government's proposal is that that tax should stop at the $3,000 level, or at the figure of $60 a year.
My proposal is that there should be an increase in the amount to be collected from that tax, to be effected by removing that maximum, and I say that, in the light of what I have just read from page 431 of Bourinot's fourth edition, it is in order. I submit I am making two main points-or perhaps I should say I am making three. I say, first of all, that there was nothing in the resolution preceding the bill spelling out what the taxation was to be. Hon. members know that there are citations in Beauchesne which are taken from May, and which say that when the terms are not spelled out in a resolution which has had the governor general's recommendation it is open to private members to make changes from the floor of the house. And if I wished to take the time I could quote some interesting precedents. The Minister of Finance has said that he likes precedents.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not too many of them, or too lengthy.
Old Age Security


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear someone near me saying that it depends upon which way the precedents go. The ones I have referred to would favour the point I have made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have some good ones, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bourinot says at page 431 that while a private member cannot introduce a new tax, or a new idea, he does have the right to propose an increase or a diminution in a tax proposed by the government. My proposal is for an increase in the amount to be raised from this tax, and it does not violate this other principle, namely that we cannot upset the balance of ways and means. We are not costing the government anything; we are making a few million dollars for the treasury.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is costing the people something.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only the wealthy. The final point, and one which must be taken seriously by Your Honour in making up your mind as to how you will rule, is that in the ruling already given today it was decided that this bill is not an ordinary taxation bill subject to the usual rules which govern taxation bills. I wanted it to be so governed. I argued it should have been preceded by a resolution in committee of ways and means, but my contention was not accepted.
In other words the point made by the Minister of Finance was accepted, namely that this is not an ordinary taxation bill. If it is not an ordinary taxation bill, and the government has the right to bring it in without observing the rules of Bourinot, May, Beauchesne and all the rest of them, as well as the rules of the parliament of Canada-


Douglas Charles Abbott: The minister is observing them all right. We will forget about May, and so on; but he is observing the rules of the parliament of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, he is not observing the rules of the parliament of Canada. He is resting his case on points made in a memorandum he has obtained from officials.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I could take up as much time as you can, if I wished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might have taken less
time if the minister had brought it in properly. I say that if he has that right, then you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game, and we have the right on this bill to move an amendment in committee, as I have sought to do. I confess it would not be something that one might do on an ordinary taxation bill brought in in the ordinary way. Ordinarily we would deal with taxation measures in committee of ways and means, where other rules apply. But I submit with respect that this bill is brought in in an

Old Age Security
extraordinary way, apart from the observance of the usual rules which apply in the house, and -that I have the right I have indicated, equal to the right of the minister. Therefore I press my amendment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I said, I thoroughly enjoy these long arguments on procedure, although I am concerned at times with what they cost the taxpayers of Canada. However, I am basing my position in this case upon section 54 of the British North America Act, which has been quoted in the house time and again, where it says:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the governor general in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
And without going into May or Erskine-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -I will quote from Beau-chesne's second edition, citation 551, where it says:
It is a fundamental principle that no resolution or amendment to increase a charge upon the people can be moved with the Speaker in the chair; it must be initiated in committee-
"In committee"-not necessarily committee of ways and means, -but, "in committee"-
-by a minister acting on behalf of the crown.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a question?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is it on the point of order?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let us not waste more time on it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege, then? I have had a little advice from my left on the subject. I know nothing about May-or Beauharnois, or Winnipeg North Centre-but I do know something about the Canadian Legion, and about common sense. I wish only to ask a question-and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who may be taking up another hour of our time, should be glad that I am getting this information in order that I may vote intelligently on one of his numerous amendments. All I am interested in knowing from the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or perhaps the Minister of National Defence- and I want to be corrected if I am wrong, in order that I may vote intelligently on these numerous amendments-is whether the recipient of the new old age security pension which, as I understand it, will become payable on January 1, 1952, and who is also in

receipt of a war veterans allowance, is entitled to both, subject to taxation for income tax purposes, provided the income, if he is a single man, does not exceed $1,000.
The Minister of Finance referred to this matter at page 697 of Hansard for November 5. If my understanding is wrong, I should like to have it corrected. I was ruled out of order before, but I cannot be ruled out of order this time. This was a statement made by the Minister of Finance with respect to this measure. My understanding-and let me say that I do not need any assistance from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs when I am arguing on behalf of the veterans of Canada-as I understand it, the recipient of a war veterans allowance will be taxed if he applies for this in exactly the same way as any other applicant. I understand also that the statute provides for an exemption of $1,000 for a single man. I should like the Minister of Finance to answer a question, which will guide me in voting on some of the amendments that have been moved. Will the recipient of a war veterans allowance be entitled to apply for the new old age security pension without a means test and be subject to the normal rate of taxation which permits an exemption of $1,000 for income tax purposes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He would be entitled to apply for a pension and receive that pension. When he receives it, it will be taxable income in his hands. If he is a single man and over sixty-five years of age, as the law stands today he will be entitled to an exemption of $1,500.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just one more word on the point of order. The Minister of Finance in his last reply in reference to my amendment quoted a section of the British North America Act which provides that money measures have to be introduced by a minister of the crown. May I remind him, and you, sir, of the citation from Beauchesne's third edition to which I was referring when I was on my feet before but without having it before me to quote it verbatim. It is citation 486, to be found -at page 179 of Beauchesne's third edition, and it reads:
The committee is not bound by the terms of the provisions which the ministers have inserted in the bill; and, when no amount has been mentioned in the resolution, any member may propose to increase the grants specified in the bill or to extend the application of the provisions of the bill, whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Why does the hon. member not read the first paragraph of that citation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not mind reading the first paragraph, which is as follows:
Reductions can be made in committee on the bill, but no grant can be increased except upon recommendation of the crown.


Alphonse Fournier: Does not that mean anything?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that you have to read the next paragraph with it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Why not get on with the merits of this thing?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Minister of Finance will accept the merits of my proposal, that this $60 limit should be taken off, we can end this point of order discussion. I have given him plenty of time to do that. It seems to me that he should take off that maximum. What I am saying to the Minister of Public Works is that the first sentence in citation 486 is qualified by the second part which refers to the case where the resolution preceding the bill does not specify any amount.
The resolution preceding this bill was moved on October 25 by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as reported on page 378 of Hansard. The latter part of the resolution, the only part that is now relevant, reads:
-and to establish a fund made up of special contributions levied for that purpose.
There was no reference in that resolution, -and that is what had the royal recommendation-as to what the amounts to be levied would be. In other words, it is governed by the terms of the second paragraph of citation 486 which says:
-when no amount has been mentioned in the resolution, any member may propose to increase the grants specified in the bill or to extend the application of the provisions of the bill-
The latter is what my amendment does.
-whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
I submit that on all counts the amendment is in order.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I refer the committee to citation 501 of Beauchesne's third edition which reads:
No augmentation of a tax or duty asked1 by the crown can be proposed to the committee, nor tax imposed, save upon the motion of a minister of the crown; nor would an amendment to extend the imposition of a tax to persons enjoying an exemption therefrom be now permitted.
In my opinion the effect of the amendment is to increase a tax and I must rule it out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I must appeal from yaur ruling, and I
Old Age Security
would point out that the citation you have just read refers to committee of ways and means, which we were not permitted to go into.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: My ruling is not debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am appealing your ruling.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:


Stanley Howard Knowles: an amendment as follows:
"That section 10, subsection 3 of Bill No. 13 be amended by deleting from line 39 the words 'the lesser of' and also by deleting from line 41 the word 'or' and by deleting from line 42 the words 'sixty dollars'."
I ruled the amendment out of order on the basis that under citation 501 it is not competent for a private member to propose in committee of the whole the augmentation of a tax.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Dion of the committee of the whole has reported that when the committee was considering clause 10, subclause 3, of Bill 13, Mr. Knowles moved that the subclause be amended by deleting from line 39 the words "the lesser of" and also by deleting from line 41 the word "or" and also deleting from line 42 the words "sixty dollars." The chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the basis that under citation 501 of Beauchesne's third edition it is not competent for a private member in committee of the whole to propose the augmentation of a tax. From this ruling Mr. Knowles and others have appealed.


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall section 10 carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are several points that I think the Minister of Finance could perhaps clear up quite simply, but which are not clear from reading the provisions of sections 10 and 11. In the first place, what is to be the year chosen for the purpose of the fund, as to both revenues and outgo? Is it to be the calendar year or the government's own fiscal year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will be the government's fiscal year. Of course, for the last three months of this fiscal year payments will be made out of the fund and payments will be made into it. The first fiscal period will be the three months' period. Then commencing on April 1 the operations, I take it, would be

reported on the regular fiscal year basis. But actually, as the committee is aware, it will operate for three months of the current fiscal year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The next point arises out of some of the remarks made by the Minister of Finance in speaking on October 25. It concerns the deficit that he expects in the early months of operation. I wonder if he would enlarge on his comments on that subject? I think that all hon. members would be reluctant to see 'the financing of this pension plan embarrassed in any way by the creation of a deficit which presumably is to be carried on and liquidated out of the revenues provided by the 2-2-2 formula in succeeding periods. Would the minister enlarge on what he had to say with reference to the deficit and indicate, first of all, if there is any way in which it is proposed to meet the deficit in the first fiscal period; and second, if not, how it is proposed to meet the incidence of the deficit so far as later fiscal periods are concerned?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think I would care to enlarge much on what I said the other day when I was introducing this measure. As is indicated by the section which we are now considering, provision is made that the Minister of Finance may make advances to this fund. It is obvious that such advances are out of the consolidated revenue fund; and it is obvious that they will have to be made at the outset because receipts from the special taxes which have been earmarked for this purpose would not come in quickly enough to meet the payments which start promptly on January 1.
In my general statement I indicated that at budget time next spring, when I have had an opportunity of seeing a little bit more clearly how the fund was operating in the initial months, I would then be in a better position than I am in today to assess the future prospects, both as to revenue and outgo, and would be in a position to recommend any special measures, if any such were needed, to get the fund away to a good start. I would prefer not to elaborate on that statement at this time, because I have not had an opportunity of giving final consideration to it or of discussing it with my colleagues. I therefore do not think I can add much to what I have already said.
Obviously there are two or three ways in which it might be handled. The advances might be made and repaid over a period of years. It might be considered that, in order to get the fund away to a proper start, it might be desirable to make some form of initial

grant or something of that sort. But I would not care to make any specific statement as to that at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister this question, arising out of his final comment. If the government proposes to make a grant in order to-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should add that no consideration has yet been given to that matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If that should be the course decided upon by the government in order to meet the problem in the first fiscal period, I presume the house would be invited by the government to make provision by way of supplementary estimate or something of that kind, so that the matter will be open for discussion in this house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know of no way in which a grant could be made without the approval of the house.


Mr. Quelch:: The Minister of Finance has attempted to justify the proposals in this section on the ground that the income tax provides for a graduated tax upwards, and therefore the people in the higher income brackets are already paying their fair share of the cost of government. I think that the important point we should keep in mind is not the amount of money that any individual is paying by way of taxation, but rather the amount of money an individual has left after he has paid his tax. For instance if a person, after paying tax, has $30,000 or $40,000 left, surely that individual is in a far better position to make a substantial contribution towards meeting the cost of social services in this country than an individual who is only receiving $3,000. I believe, therefore, that the people in the higher income brackets should pay a higher percentage rate than the people in the lower income brackets.
The bill, as we have it before us now, means that a person with an income of $3,000 pays a 2 per cent tax; a person with an income of $6,000 only pays a 1 per cent tax; a person with an income of $12,000 pays one half of one per cent; and a person with an income of $24,000 pays a quarter of one per cent. In other words, you have a graduated tax in reverse. I always believed in taxation based on ability to pay, and I thought the Minister of Finance believed in that principle. In this case it is a graduated tax by which the person with the higher income pays less tax. I cannot look upon that as a fair way of levying any form of taxation, whether it be for social services or any other purpose. If at the present time we were entering a period in which there were going to be large surpluses of goods, then I would be advocating the issuance of national money for the purpose
Old Age Security
of meeting at least part of the expense entailed in old age pensions. But as I see it, and as the government has given us the picture, that is not the situation. The situation is that our defence expenditures are steadily climbing; our international obligations to help rehabilitate devastated areas and to provide assistance for backward areas are steadily climbing; in the future there will be large capital expansion in this country, and all of those things are of an inflationary character. I agree that as long as that situation exists it is necessary to withdraw from circulation redundant purchasing power. But if it is necessary to withdraw surplus purchasing power from circulation, surely the logical thing would be to withdraw the surplus purchasing power of the people who have the surplus purchasing power and not try to withdraw it from people who are having great difficulty in meeting the cost of living today.
Just a few words about the sales tax. The minister has pointed out on page 388 of Hansard that not more than one-third of consumer expenditure is on goods subject to sales tax. That does not alter the picture. It is still a fact that the people in the lower income brackets are going to stand a heavier burden under the sales tax than the people in the higher income brackets, and for this reason. The people in the lower income brackets will be paying the sales tax on not only one-third of what they spend, but generally they are paying sales tax on one-third of their total income because the people in the lower income brackets have to spend all their income. On the other hand, people in the higher income brackets only find it necessary to spend, comparatively speaking, a small percentage of their income for the purchase of goods. Instead of paying sales tax on one-third of their income, they are only paying sales tax on a small proportion of that income. The people in the lower income groups are actually paying a far higher percentage of taxation under the sales tax than the people in the higher income brackets.
I regret that it was not possible for the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to be accepted, because it would have been quite interesting if the members of this house had been allowed to record their attitude on the $60 ceiling. I believe that ceiling should be removed, and the taxation graduated upwards in a way which would make it possible to at least make a substantial reduction in the sales tax.


Donald MacInnis: I wish to say a few words on this section, Mr. Chairman. I am opposed to the $60 ceiling on taxable income. As has been so well said by the hon. member for Acadia, it is a graduated income tax in



S32 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Old Age Security
reverse. I thought that the accepted principle in this country was taxation according to ability to pay. Apparently that is now accepted for only some purposes. I claim that it would be just as logical to put a ceiling on the amount of tax that any one person paid to finance the defence program, for family allowances or any other expenditure the government makes, as it is to put a ceiling on the amount that any one taxpayer should contribute to old age security.
Let us look at the reason old age security and various other kinds of social legislation are necessary. Do hon. members know the underlying principle? We make provision for social services because of the maldistribution of income, because a few get more than their share of the social wealth, more than they produce and more than they earn. They get it because they own. The great mass get less than their share, less than they produce, and less than they earn. They are in that position because they live by working instead of owning. Social security payments are made to various groups because today social attitudes have changed. In other days, these people would have been allowed to die. Some of them died very young. Many of them reached adult age, but the great mass of them died before reaching what we call old age. This is a humanitarian attempt to improve social conditions by taking from those who have, in order to give to those who have not.
If the social services could be financed by taxes on those who need the social services, there would be no need for social services because the people would be able to provide for themselves. It is for that reason that it is so cockeyed to begin financing this particular piece of our social security by this method of taxation which is half way between insurance and ability to pay. I believe this old age security should be accepted as just a part of an over-all social security program. We shall have an over-all security program some day financed, as it is in New Zealand and other countries, by taxes on income which go into a social security fund. All the requirements are drawn from that fund, and if there is not sufficient to meet the demands then the balance is paid out of the consolidated revenue. In that way the wealthy will pay according to ability to pay and in that way only. I say this is a departure from everything we have accepted in the field of taxation. It has been said in this house many times, and it has been said by the hon. member for Acadia this afternoon, that we should not take into consideration what a person pays; what we should take into consideration is what that person has left after he has paid his tax,

because it is what he has left that determines the standard of living he shall have and the kind of life he is going to live.
Harry Oliver White: There is a question I want to ask, and it arises out of an article in the Farmers' Magazine of October, 1951 under the heading: "Capital News". I am going to read that little item. I realize that the first sentence is right, but I want to ask a question about the second. The article reads:
The expectation here is that farmers will be assessed directly when filing their income tax returns. And there is a distinct possibility that they will be given the responsibility of deducting pension contributions from the wages of their employees.
If that is the way it is going to be done fewer cows will be milked and more bookkeeping done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The writer of that article must have shared the view of some that it was proposed to impose a payroll tax as one of the methods of providing moneys for this fund. As I indicated in my opening statement, that type of taxation was rejected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, one of the anomalies which I drew to the attention of the minister last Thursday is that which seems to arise in the case of a married couple where both are .working. The clause we are now considering specifies quite clearly that this 2 per cent on taxable income is to be paid by each individual liable to taxation under the Income Tax Act. I take it therefore that when both man and wife are working, and when they desire to take advantage of the right they have to submit separate income tax forms, each will have to pay if each is taxable. Now, on that basis, if one takes the case of a man and wife-I assume for purposes of example that there are no other dependents -where the man is making $4,000 a year and the wife $2,000 a year, as I understand it they file separate returns. The husband's exemption level is $1,000 so he pays 2 per cent on the other $3,000, or a tax of $60 a year. His wife, who is making $2,000 a year, has the same $1,000 exemption, which leaves $1,000 taxable, which at the rate of 2 per cent amounts to $20 a year. In other words, between the two of them on their gross joint income of $6,000 a year they pay an old age security tax of $80. On the other hand another couple, where the man is fortunate enough to be earning the whole $6,000 in his own name, will be protected by the $60 ceiling and will pay only $60 a year. There are two couples earning precisely the same amount of money, $6,000 a year. In one case the old age security tax is the maximum of $60; in the other case, the couple will pay $80 a year.

Has the Minister of Finance given any thought to getting around that unfortunate anomaly?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Minister of Finance has not given any thought to getting around that, because he did not want to get around it. The tax is imposed upon all income taxpayers, and it is imposed on the taxable income above the exemption. That applies irrespective of whether people are married or not, and will depend upon their dependents' taxable status. The two examples my hon. friend gave, as I listened to them, are quite correct. That would be the result.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister was making his statement I noticed that somebody over there shouted "hear, hear".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There they are again.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Both husband and wife are going to be eligible for pension, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So will the man making $100,000 a year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course, so what?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He and his wife will both be eligible for pension, but in that case the income is all in the husband's name and the maximum amount they will pay between them will be $60 a year. Therefore you have the case-


Douglas Charles Abbott: And if it is divided it will be $120 a year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, but to use the percentage table that the hon. member for Acadia-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Each taxpayer has a ceiling of $60. If each has a taxable income each pays $60.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; even if this man and wife with an income of $100,000 a year file separate income tax forms, they will pay $120 a year tax; whereas the man and wife making $6,000 a year will pay $60 or $80, according to the example.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is stating the obvious.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that even when you look at these examples it is not fair. The couple making $100,000 a year should pay a lot more than twice as much as the couple making $6,000 a year. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that is not a correct answer to the problem I have cited. I am asking the minister and the Liberal members to consider the position of the man and wife making $6,000 a year. When they are making it in two parts they have to pay $80 a year, as opposed to the other man and wife making the same 94699-53
Old Age Security
amount of money who will pay only $60 a year, and they will get the same pension when they retire. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is completely unfair.


Mr. Laing:: I have no particular desire to inject myself into this debate, but in June of this year just before we left here I thought I foresaw some of the things we would be heading into, and on June 23 I had occasion to say, as reported at page 4569 of Hansard:
I have in mind particularly the youngster of 21 who starts working and, under this legislation, finds he is going to have to work for forty-four years before he can hope to get any benefit from it. We have to sell to the working force of this country the idea that they are going to have to put up the money for those who are now retired. It will be a tremendous job for us to sell that idea to them.
Immediately thereafter the hon. member for Vancouver East spoke and said that would be no difficult job at all. He said so; and I want to read what he said, as reported at page 4570 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Vancouver South-


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member for Vancouver East, if you are referring to me.


Arthur Laing: I am going to tell the hon. member for Vancouver East that I have a much higher regard for him than for some of the ideas he brings into this house. I quote again:
The hon. member for Vancouver South-


Donald MacInnis: Vancouver East.


Arthur Laing: If he keeps on interrupting I will increase my admiration. I continue:
The hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned that the youngster-


Donald MacInnis: Vancouver East.


Arthur Laing: I am reading what you said. If the hon. member for Vancouver East will have a little patience he will get this as I go along. These are his words:
The hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned that the youngster of twenty-one would not like to start paying for legislation of this kind, for old age pensions and health services. But the hon. member forgets that when the youngster of twenty-one reaches the age of twenty-five, or perhaps earlier, he will be getting married, and I would imagine that he will have a mother-in-law and perhaps a father-in-law. He is also most likely to have a mother and father living at the time. Rather than have these people come in and live with him-unless he is already living with them- he will be very glad if they have old age pensions, and old age security by which they are able to take care of themselves and live to themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The crowding together is due to Liberal housing.


Arthur Laing: And finally he stated:
My young friend is so old already that he does not know the minds of young people of today.

Old Age Security
He had referred to the Senate prior to that. Well, I do not look as much like a senator as the hon. member for Vancouver East. All I want to say is this-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are closer to it, though.


Arthur Laing: I recall the Prime Minister having stated, in respect of the general matter of finance, that all those who are able will be expected to contribute. That is a simple statement, but I think an eminently sound one. Today we should be concerned with whether or not that great and guiding principle of the Prime Minister is incorporated in the financial aspects of this legislation.
My hon. friends opposite want a graduated scale. They are going to get this vast sum of money from the rich. If that limit of $60 were to be raised, if they had any regard to the numerical facts of taxation in this country, and against whom it is imposed, they would realize that it would be imposed upon a group against whom they themselves would not want to impose it. Why, we would not get more than a mere fraction of the amount of money we need, if we were to take it only from the rich. I think today in Canada the more sorely pressed groups of people are the white-collar and junior executive groups. Any lifting of this $60 would mean that to a large extent it would be imposed upon those who are suffering most today.
I believe the minister has made a genuine attempt to spread responsibility among all people, having regard to that simple statement, that all those who are able should make a contribution. I think he has done it very well indeed. If they can adduce figures to the contrary-and they have not done so up to this point-then they should do so. I think at some time the Minister of Finance should bring to the house a break-down to show who does pay the taxes in this country. It would be most illuminating for us to have that information. Certainly no figures as to who pays them have been adduced from the other side of the house.


Donald MacInnis: I should like to deal with one or two remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South, before he dealt with the sections of the bill before us. He has said that he has a high regard for me, but not for my ideas.


Arthur Laing: Some of your ideas.


Donald MacInnis: Well, to separate me from my ideas would simply make of me a nonentity, something no one could describe. As a matter of fact I would be-


An hon. Member:: A Liberal.


Donald MacInnis: I might be a Liberal, it is true; but, worse than that, I would be under detention somewhere. The point is that the hon. member for Vancouver South is not able to understand my ideas, and very few other ideas. Then-and I do not know why he did this-he said I look more like a senator than he does. All I want to say to that is that I do not look nearly as much like a senator as I did a year ago. But no matter how I look, I am much farther away from being a senator than the member for Vancouver South.


Mr. Sinclair:: It is that benign look you have.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano might as well keep quiet, because at some other time I shall have something to say to him about what he has been saying.


Mr. Brooks:: You can say a lot about that.


Donald MacInnis: When I hear hon. members from the other side of the house referring to what the Prime Minister said, I always think of the communists and how they speak about Stalin the glorious leader. If the glorious leader were to say something the very opposite to what he did say, they would praise that just the same. So I am not impressed when the hon. member for Vancouver South says, "our leader said this" and "our leader said that," because we know that if "our leader" had said the opposite, the hon. member for Vancouver South would be shouting for the opposite.


James Sinclair: Envy will get you nowhere.


Donald MacInnis: He would not know any better, anyway. Then the hon. member for Vancouver South referred to the old chestnut that no matter how much we taxed the rich we could get only a mere fraction of the money required. I agree with that. But that is no reason for not taxing the rich. That is no reason for taxing the poor. All we want, all this group is asking for, is equitable taxation, so that something will be left for the poor to live on.
They ask who will pay those taxes. I will tell my hon. friend that there is only one way in which taxes can be paid. Taxes are paid out of production. And I know the people who do the producing. On several occasions since the session began we have heard of the necessity for greater production. As a matter of fact, for the last four or five weeks-the length of time we have been here this session-we have been trying to find out how short we can make our hours, without the people knowing we are shortening the hours of work in this house. The first thing we ought to do is see how much we can increase production.

I know who produces the taxes. It is the people who produce the wealth of the country: the miners, loggers and farmers, and all those other people usually referred to as the working class. Those who have large incomes are not necessarily producing wealth; they are at the receiving end of the hopper. They just pocket what has been produced.


Arthur Laing: Name that group. Do not be so general.


Donald MacInnis: Oh, I can name them. I do not want to name them one by one. You know them as well as I do.


Arthur Laing: It would not take long to name them in this country.


Donald MacInnis: You know them as well as I do. They are not the people who pay the taxes. They did not produce the wealth. We are trying to see that the people who produced the wealth benefit from the taxes that are being paid.


Howard Charles Green: May I refer to the first subsection in section 10 which provides for the levying of the old age security tax at 2 per cent on the sale price of all goods. Will it be necessary to show in the invoice that there is this old age security tax of 2 per cent? I am asking that because in section 90 of the Special War Revenue Act-and this may have been amended since 1927; I have only the revised statutes of that year before me-there is a provision whereby the sales tax must be shown as such in all invoices. Is it the intention that in future there will be shown on the invoice the sales tax of 8 per cent and the old age security tax of 2 per cent? That is the plan being followed in connection with income and corporation taxes. I suppose that in the returns the taxation will be shown as comprising ordinary income tax and also old age security tax, so the taxpayer will realize that he is contributing to the old age security fund. Is the same plan to be followed in connection with the 2 per cent levied against sales?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The present intention is that the 2 per cent income tax, which is a direct tax imposed upon the individual who will pay it, will be shown as a separate line. The present intention, I believe, is that it will be the last line on the income tax form. With respect to the sales tax, I may say that is not the intention. It is an indirect tax which will be paid by the manufacturer or wholesaler at the wholesale level. As the law stands at the present time and as it will stand after the enactment of this section, the sales tax shown on the invoice will be 10 per cent and the Department of 94699-531
Old Age Security
National Revenue, sales tax division, will have to pay into the special fund 2 of the 10 per cent which it has collected.
Similarly, and I speak subject to possible correction as to this, the 2 per cent additional impost upon corporations will be included in the general corporation tax rate and again the appropriate amount will be paid into the fund by the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, from the receipts from the corporation tax. It will not be shown as a separate item there.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be of some value to have this shown on the invoice as being the old age security tax? The people would then realize that they are paying 2 per cent for that particular purpose.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think there would be little value because the people who actually pay the tax to the government are not the people who ultimately pay it. Of course the tax goes into the price of the goods as in the case of any indirect tax, but frankly I would think it would be of little value to put the added burden on people making out invoices and so on of making that separate entry. I do not think it would be of any value at all in the case of the corporation tax to show a separate percentage of the existing percentage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish the minister would comment a little more fully on what 1 said on November 1, as reported at pages 609 and 610 of Hansard. I do not think he was in the house when I spoke, so I shall outline briefly what I said at that time. When tfie minister spoke on October 25 he laid stress upon the importance of creating consciousness on the part of the people of this country that they are contributing to the cost of old age security. The minister quoted from page 69 of the report of the committee, as follows:
The use of specific earmarked contributions for old age security purposes was supported by all organizations discussing possible revenue sources. It was repeatedly emphasized that all Canadians should have a direct and conscious financial responsibility in the provision of old age income security, and should be made aware of their responsibility to meet the costs through an earmarked device.
Among the recommendations made by the committee we find further stress laid upon that point, as is indicated in recommendation No. 64, which reads:
64. The committee is in favour of the contributory principle, not only because of the importance of this in raising total moneys required, but also because of the importance of establishing a close association in the mind of the individual between his contribution to the cost and the ultimate benefit he is to receive.
Most of the discussion on the bill and on the financial provisions has revolved around the income tax aspect, and I wish the minister

Old Age Security
would enlarge on the sales tax angle because that is to be a much larger source of income for the old age security fund than is the income tax. The sales tax is to provide 47-5 per cent according to the first estimate, and it may well provide one-half the total. As I said the other day, one can appreciate the difficulties which confronted the Minister of Finance in working out proposals to meet the cost and I would be the last individual to minimize those difficulties. We realize that this cost has to be met. If we are going to have these security provisions the money has to be found, and the only place it can be found is in the pockets of the people.
In considering the best form of consumption tax as a source of revenue for the fund did the minister give any consideration to the possibility of adopting another type of consumption tax than the sales tax? It is obvious in the light of the answer given to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the sales tax does not meet the standards laid down by the committee and subscribed to by the minister in the two extracts I have read from the report. The tax is hidden and the consumer does not know what portion goes to meet this contribution to the old age security fund. It does not meet the specifications laid down by the committee in those two recommendations. We know also that this particular form of tax has an inflationary effect because as the goods pass from hand to hand the mark-ups result in an increase in the cost to the consumer, not of 2 per cent but probably something like 4 per cent.
I realize that in the sales tax the minister found something that was ready to hand. The machinery was there, and there would be no administrative complications. Also there is the problem that the provinces are also in the field of consumption or sales taxes levied on the consumer. I should like to ask the minister what factors led to the conclusion that the sales tax, which does not create that consciousness in the mind of the taxpayer which I think the minister recognizes to be beneficial and desirable, was chosen in preference to some other form of tax which might have met the specifications of the committee?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I can elaborate on what I said in my opening statement. I stated then that we gave consideration to a great variety of alternate forms of tax levies to raise the necessary moneys to provide this fund with a sufficient amount to pay these pensions. I referred to the payroll tax and gave reasons why I rejected it. If my hon. friend has in mind a retail purchase tax let me say that I gave no consideration to imposing such a tax. So far as the federal

government is concerned, our experience with that form of tax during the war, when we applied it to certain special items, was far from satisfactory. It was found to be a tax which could possibly be evaded by those who were not too responsible. All in all it was found to be a most unsatisfactory form of tax. We gave consideration to a great variety of other taxes, such as taxes on specific commodities like tea, coffee, sugar and the like. I rejected all of those as being in the circumstances unsound and impractical.
As to the deterrent effect of earmarking taxes, let me say that there has been a good deal of talk in this house and elsewhere about the sales tax being an undesirable form of tax. I repeat what I have said before, that I am far from sharing those views. I think the sales tax as we have it in our structure and in the light of the requirements which we have to meet is a fair tax. Since this public attitude has been created with respect to the sales tax it did seem to me that if we earmarked 2 per cent of that tax for social purposes and then in a year or two it was found necessary to increase the tax by 1 or 2 per cent the public would be pretty conscious of what old age pension payments involved.
I do not say there would be the same awareness with respect to the corporation tax. Most people look upon the corporation tax as being a tax which is paid by somebody else, but in large ^measure a tax imposed upon a corporation has to be passed on to the user or purchaser of the goods and services of the corporation. It might have some small effect upon the profits of the corporation or the wages of the people who work for the corporation, but a corporation is not a creature of flesh and blood; it is a creature of the law, and any funds which it has must be obtained from someone else. In essence, they must be obtained from the people to whom it sells its goods and services. I would agree that the imposition of the 2 per cent tax on corporations would be no particular deterrent to a request for an increase in the amount of the pension, as I do not think it would particularly bring home to the recipients of the pensions or to the taxpayers the cost involved. But I do think that the effect of earmarking 2 per cent of the personal income tax and 2 per cent of the sales tax will have that effect. Broadly speaking, that represents our thinking and I do not know that I can elaborate on it much more.


Howard Charles Green: I urge the minister to give
some further thought to the suggestion that provision should be made for showing this old age security tax on invoices. In British Columbia we have a provincial sales tax, which certainly was not very popular at the

time it was imposed and I suppose is not very popular yet; but the government insisted from the start that it should not be described officially as a sales tax but as a tax for municipal aid and social security. Those may not be the exact words but that is the effect of the title they gave to the tax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a retail sales tax.


Howard Charles Green: A retail sales tax. I think the idea is gradually spreading that the tax is for these two purposes, which of course are very popular; and the public are getting some idea that those are the two reasons why the tax was levied.


Arthur Laing: Are the muncipalities getting
any such idea?


Howard Charles Green: I imagine they are, although
I do not know. In this case I do not think it would mean a great deal of extra work for the companies. They probably use a stamp anyway to show the sales tax, and it is simply a matter of getting a new stamp showing sales tax 8 per cent and old age security tax 2 per cent. I think there is some value in giving all the publicity that can be given to the fact that 2 per cent of the sales tax is being paid to provide for old age security. I ask the minister to give that point some further thought.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The matter can be handled
by administration anyway. It does not require a statutory enactment.


Howard Charles Green: I think it would require an amendment to the old section 90 of the act.


Mr. Low:: It was very interesting to me to hear the minister admit before the committee just a minute ago essentially what the hon. member for Red Deer said a few days ago when speaking on the resolution, I think it was, preceding the introduction of the bill. He said that the Minister of Finance's method of financing old age pensions gives some respectability and permanency to the sales tax. I think that is the only interpretation that can be taken.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I ever admitted that. I have asserted that the sales tax is a most respectable tax. I have always asserted that.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, but-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No admission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are a man of many assertions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I assert it.


Solon Earl Low: Then the minister asserted that this was an attempt to give it permanency-


Douglas Charles Abbott: "Reiterated" might be a good word. I have done it before.
Old Age Security


Solon Earl Low: -and a certain respectability to which it is not entitled under the circumstances. I should like to ask the minister this question. I will admit right off that the minister had to find some place from which to get the money for old age pensions. That is elementary; but does he not think it would have been much more in the interests of the Canadian people to get it in such a way as not to pyramid prices to the Canadian people of goods coming under the tax? I think that is the question at issue. The real objection we take to the sales tax as it is now constituted is that since it is imposed at the manufacturers' level it pyramids prices to consumers. Nobody has been able to show that that is not true. Since it is true, then surely the minister is not standing on solid ground when he says it is a respectable tax. I will grant that a retail sales tax, a tax collected at the retail level, could be justified. I know the difficulties of administering it, of course, but there are other ways of getting the money than from a tax imposed at the manufacturers' level, that invariably year after year has the effect of pyramiding prices to the consumer.
I think I made a statement during one of the debates preceding today's discussion that no one has yet challenged. The Minister of Finance is under the necessity of collecting 60 per cent more tax under the sales tax method imposed at the manufacturers' level than he would have to collect from the consuming public if a tax were imposed at the retail level. No one can deny that. Under these circumstances the minister is certainly not taking solid and logical ground when he says that the sales tax as now imposed is a respectable tax.
As to giving permanency to it, I want to ask the minister this question. Does he think for one moment that financing a portion of old age pensions by earmarking 2 per cent of the sales tax as it now exists is going to deter the average Canadian from asking for an increase in the amount of the pension if that person decides that he cannot get along on what he is getting by way of pension? They will not hesitate two minutes to ask for more. They are not to be deterred by any such thought.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think any recipient of the pension will be deterred from asking for more. I never thought that.


Solon Earl Low: Of course not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Possibly the other millions of people in Canada who are going to be making contributions may be deterred.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, and I do not think the average Canadian, whether or not he is a

Old Age Security
recipient, is going to be deterred for one second if he thinks the old age pension is not sufficient. He will ask for an increase, and he will turn around and do just what we are doing. He will point out to the Minister of Finance that there are other ways of financing it. I wanted to ask the minister these questions, and to point out that our stand is based on the idea that if the $60 ceiling were removed it would not be necessary for the minister to draw anything from the sales tax as it is now. I think the sooner the minister begins getting it into his mind that he should remove the manufacturers' level sales tax the better he is going to get along with the Canadian people.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will answer my hon. friend's last comment first. I have not accurate figures here, and I do not know that full calculations have been made, but my information is that if the ceiling were removed it would result at most in additional revenue of $15 million or $20 million a year. We are counting on $145 million from the sales tax. I am sure my hon. friend does not want me to argue with him this afternoon the merits or demerits of the sales tax as we have it. I have had occasion to do that before. I shall probably have occasion to do it again, because it has become a pretty permanent feature of our tax structure. I shall be glad to discuss this with him sometime. I did not come prepared with facts and figures to do so today, but I do not think the pyramiding of the tax is nearly as great as has been asserted. That is a matter that I shall be very glad to go into a bit on an appropriate occasion. Be that as it may, the sales tax is a fundamental part of our tax structure, and over the years the curious part of it has been that when people are in opposition they damn it and when they are in government they adopt it. However, I simply say that in passing.


Howard Charles Green: You remember that when you are in opposition.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend will recall, I have been endeavouring to convince my colleagues, and through them some of the Canadian people, that the sales tax is not a bad tax. I hope that by the efflux of time and a continuation of this helpful educational process I may achieve greater results than I have up to the present time. However, as I said in my opening remarks, I feel that with respect to a social security measure of this kind it is quite appropriate to use the general sales tax. I think it is perhaps the best form of tax for this particular purpose. I do not know whether I have directly answered my hon. friend's question. I can only answer
it by asserting that it is a matter of opinion, and on some of these things he holds one opinion and I hold another.


Solon Earl Low: Does the minister not think he would be doing a greater service to the people of Canada by imposing a consumers' tax?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I honestly do not. I think the complications, the cost of collection and all the rest of it would outweigh whatever value there might be in bringing particularly to the consciousness of the individual consumer the fact that he is paying a tax, but that again is a matter of opinion.


Solon Earl Low: I think the minister and his colleagues have always argued the principle of consciousness of payment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If the people are not conscious of paying the sales tax, it is not the fault of my hon. friends in the opposition.


Solon Earl Low: Some of us are conscious of it. I agree with that. But when the minister gets right down to thinking about this thing I believe he will have to admit that it would be far fairer and far more psychologically sound if he had this sales tax revamped and made an ultimate purchaser's tax. The people of this country would then know what they were paying. I know it would be harder for him in that they would kick him around a lot more.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I doubt that.


Solon Earl Low: But the way some of us in this chamber feel about it, I think he is going to have some sore spots over the ears anyway.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is getting a tough hide.


Mr. Crestohl:: As to subsection 3 of section 10, I wonder if the minister has given consideration to this problem. I realize that the pension is optional and payable only to those who apply for it. If it is optional, has a person the right to renounce it today and say: I will renounce for all time my right to this pension? Then because I renounce it today, will I have the right to be exempt from paying that $60 a year of income tax? It creates that right. It should swing both ways. I wonder whether the minister has considered that problem.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The minister has considered it; and to the question asked by the hon. member for Cartier the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A moment ago the Minister of Finance, in one of his efforts to defend the sales tax with respect to this measure and to defend the sales tax generally, said it is a fundamental part of our taxation system. He was of course referring to the system in operation by the government at the present

time. If the minister is going to defend one part of this taxation program on the basis that it is in keeping with the principles of taxation that have been laid down, in keeping with something that is fundamental, I think he should stay with his so-called fundamental principle of taxation when he gets to the income tax. As the hon. member for Spadina so well pointed out in the committee last year, it is a fundamental principle of our income tax structure that it is put on a graduated basis, and that we tax higher amounts of income at higher rates of taxation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Strictly speaking, that applies only to personal income tax.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. That is right.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It does not apply to the corporation tax.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right. The Minister of Finance, in the tax for old age security, has stayed with the principles that have been laid down by this government as to the sales tax and the corporation tax. But when he gets to the personal income tax he departs from his own government's fundamental principles and puts it on a proportional basis rather than a graduated basis; then he cuts it off at that $60 level which results in the downward graduation the hon. member for Acadia referred to a while ago.
I take this moment longer to continue my protest against this $60 ceiling, in the hope that even if the government will not take it off at this stage of the game, at some time in the near future they will go right down the line of what they call their fundamental principles of taxation and apply to social security taxation the same principles they have already applied to taxation for general purposes.
There is just one other thing I wish to say at this point. I feel that the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Vancouver South and others who say the same thing, do a disservice to this whole pension plan when they put it in terms of dollar for dollar, and when they talk about what the young man is putting in and what he is going to get back later on, as though it were an annuity. They turn the mind of the public away from the important part of the plan which is that in this year we set aside a certain portion of the wealth we are now producing in order to provide retirement security for those who are now retiring or are retired. The principle behind that provision is that when the 25-year-old man and some of us who are getting on a bit reach retirement, we are to get not the return of dollars that we put in, but we will be treated
Old Age Security
by the society of that day in the same way that we treat the older people of our day. That is the part of this plan that I like; that is one of the reasons I am so keen about it, and am so pleased that we are taking this step. But I do not like to see it misinterpreted by being put on the annuity basis. As a matter of fact the question asked by the hon. member for Cartier suggests the same thing. What would happen to the man whom the hon. member wants to have the right to contract out of this plan, if that man, when he reached age 70, found that he then needed the pension? He would want assistance of some kind. We solve that kind of problem and get away from these difficulties of dollar for dollar by this universal idea that this plan recommends. As time goes on, instead of vitiating it as the minister does by putting in these ceilings and so on, I hope we will move still further in the direction of making it a really universal plan on a pay-as-you-go basis.
May I say to the Minister of Finance, along with the hon. member for Peace River who spoke on this point a while ago, that I do not think there should be on the part of the government an attempt to deter the nation from seeking higher and better old age security. As we move on, as we increase our productive capacity, as we increase the amount of wealth we are able to produce year by year, I hope we shall be sensible enough, human enough, and humane enough to increase the portion we set aside for decent retirement for our older citizens.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Old age security fund.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if he will give us a few more words of explanation about the fund referred to in this section. I have carefully read through the section and have thought about it, but there are some things that puzzle me. References are made to the pension being paid out of this fund, but I note that really they are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. I therefore gather that the old age security fund is only a bookkeeping proposal.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As is the superannuation fund. Yes, the moneys are kept in the consolidated revenue fund.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the payment of the pension, which is provided for categorically in section 3 of the bill, does not depend upon whether or not there is any money in the fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then what is the significance of the term "loans" as used in this section?

Old Age Security


Douglas Charles Abbott: To use my hon. friend's expression, it is in order to keep the bookkeeping straight. It is intended that the special earmarked taxes will fully provide for the payment of the pension. The accounts are therefore segregated. A special fund is set up. For reasons that I explained earlier, and which are familiar to all, at the outset there will be in the fund no moneys from the special taxes which have been imposed. It is obvious that loans or advances of some form will have to be made to the fund in order to enable the pension to be paid. As I stated in my opening remarks, the fund will be started off by advances made by the Minister of Finance out of the general fund, under the authority of this section; and as tax receipts come in they will be credited to the fund. Early next spring, when we are looking at general budgetary matters, we shall have to see how things get started; and as I said in my opening statement, some special action may have to be taken at that time to get the fund off to a proper start. But while it may be necessary to advance moneys to the fund to make payment of current pensions, pending tax receipts-or if tax receipts prove inadequate, pending the time taxes are increased to make up for the deficit-from then on that is the basis upon which the fund will be operated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is quite clear-I
realize it is, but like the hon. member for Fraser Valley it is nice to get the minister to put these things on record-that the pension will be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund whether or not this old age security fund is in a state of bookkeeping balance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the taxes that are levied for this purpose when put into the bookkeeping fund are not sufficient, what happens?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would say that additional
taxes would have to be imposed, sufficient to reimburse the fund for any advances made and to provide for future payments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no requirement that says that such taxes have to be proposed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words it could go on as a sort of debt which could pile up as simply a picture of what it has cost to provide old age security?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That would be possible, but it would not be probable as long as this administration is in power.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On the title.
Leon David Crestohl: On the question of the title I should like to say a word. The plane of this debate has been high, as is indicated by the fact that the recipients of this pension have been referred to as our senior Canadians. I was wondering whether we could not incorporate something in the title that would more accurately convey this idea than the present title, "The Old Age Security Act". I should like to suggest that we term it an act for the benefit of senior Canadians.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sorry that my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here at the moment, but that question was raised a little earlier in the debate when the member for Cartier was not here. The minister pointed out that a great deal of consideration had been given to the use of some similar terminology, but it had been decided that it was not desirable to adopt it.


Mr. Gibson:: At this time I should like to make a comment. We are covering fairly well the whole taxation field in order to provide something for this old age security fund. It is a fine step, of course, on the part of the government. But I wonder whether it does not point up some of the inequities in our taxation structure. I am thinking of a province such as British Columbia, in which we have not anything comparable to the Ontario hydro commission or the Ottawa transportation commission, which pay no taxes, or the co-operative wheat pools of the prairies. I am thinking, too, of the amount of money the federal government gets out of certain provinces from timber resources. A province such as Saskatchewan would pay very little as compared to the province of British Columbia. Tremendous revenues accrue to the Minister of Finance from the timber resources there, and I suppose the same thing would apply to Ontario. It does not seem to me that, with our taxation structure as it now is, the burden bears equally on all Canadians from all provinces. However, I am sure that is a matter to which the minister must be giving continued consideration.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He does his best to spread the burden as fairly as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Paul Joseph James Martin: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on this bill at any stage

of the proceedings. I should like to say a word or two here to put myself on record with regard to it. I believe it is only natural that in any discussion of old age pensions in these particular times and circumstances in which the world finds itself, there should be a discussion of the cost of living as it affects the old age pensioners.
I want to make the point, already made by members of our group and members of other groups in the house, that a pension of $40 per month is not adequate. I am thinking particularly in terms of the purchasing power of that $40. In fact, sir, in terms of purchasing power it is not any better than the original $20 a month that was given many years ago. I feel at this point in the legislation, after having striven for old age security for so many years, that it is as though we had planted a tree, cultivated it long and when finally it has come to fruition and we reach out to grasp the fruit we find that it has turned to dust and ashes in our hands. That is the way many of our senior citizens will look at it. They will consider that their own high expectations have now turned to dust. The Liberal member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) in his speech yesterday did not say much to console the potential recipients of old age pensions. They will be interested, but somewhat sceptical of his statement on page 809 of Hansard that the remedies for inflation which the government have adopted are beginning to produce results. He did not give any details as to what the results were, or attempt to prove that statement. I do not think the cost of living index would give any such indication. Perhaps he thought the older citizens would be interested in another statement he made and which appears on the same page. He said:
People should be more self-reliant. They should count less on help from outside, and attempt to solve their problems in their own way.
The old age pensioner will be interested; to know how the contributions to their pensions are to be made. They will be interested in the sales tax, and interested to learn that there is a $60 ceiling on the special contribution made through income tax by any individual, irrespective of his ability to pay. It has been said that this apparent injustice is rectified by the higher sales tax the wealthier individual pays. But, sir, I was struck by the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) concerning the inequity of this particular $60. He excuses it-that is my own word-by instancing the equity of the sales tax as a compensatory measure. I cannot agree with him in that. There is another quotation I should like to use. He said it was the essence of the principle of this bill that each should pay according to 94699-54
Old Age Security
his means. In reply may I point out that the individuals who receive the old age pension-that is to say, those who really need it-will be spending 100 per cent, or all their income in daily and necessary purchases. I would ask, sir, whether that is true of the individual who is well enough off to take advantage of the $60 ceiling. What percentage of his income will he spend on the daily necessities and thus be subject to the sales tax? Certainly not 100 per cent. I submit that he will have a great deal left. I do not begrudge it to him, but I should like to see the old age pensioner have something left, too.
It would not appear that the old age pensioner will be much affected by the corporation tax. Limited though my knowledge of corporations is, my past observation would lead me to believe that the corporation tax will be carried back; that is to say, that it will be carried on to the general public, the purchasing public, of which the old age pensioners themselves form an important part.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) made a very fine speech when he introduced this matter. He said that we now have the best and the most generous old age pensions in the world. The same minister and his colleagues have also said that we have almost the best standard of living in the world. Well, we certainly have been blessed with an abundance of natural resources, and I wonder whether there is any reason why the scale of our pensions should not be commensurate with that standard of living and with those resources which we enjoy. I do not think it is anything to boast about; I think it is a thing which is only natural. Should not those pensioners enjoy the due proportion of the wealth which they have created, wealth which we enjoy- I would like to underline this point-the wealth which we enjoy today, not the standard of living that was current at the time these old age pensioners started out as young people. I think that is a very important point, surely, when one takes into consideration the loss of purchasing power of money, because, as we have seen in the history of this nation, the $20 pension which was not so inadequate twenty years ago is very very inadequate today. In other words, I think the point is important. The standard of living which old age pensioners are to enjoy, whatever it is, should be based upon the standard of living that exists at the time the pension is paid, irrespective of the dollar amount which is involved. These people who have created the wealth we enjoy are entitled to their fair share of it.

Old Age Security
While our pensions are higher-that is admitted-I would also point out that so is our cost of living higher. There has been some talk-I spoke on it myself-about the comparative cost of living in Britain as compared with Canada. I should like to point out that over there they have subsidies which keep down the cost of living of the pensioners. So they have not the same need for a larger pension in respect to the things the old age pensioner there buys and on which he spends 100 per cent of his income, namely the necessities of life, for the most part food. It is beyond dispute that with the aid of subsidies in Britain the old age pensioner there is living on as good a standard at a much less cost than his prototype in Canada.
In making a comparison with Britain it is well to remember that not only in subsidized food has the old age pensioner compensation for a lower pension than that paid in Canada. I think perhaps I could illustrate this point by reading from an editorial which appeared in today's Ottawa Citizen. The editorial quotes from a pamphlet called "Poverty and the welfare state", and I think parts of this editorial are relevant to the discussion. It reads:
In 1936, about a third of the working people in this "favorably placed" town were living below the poverty line.
This was written after a survey of the conditions of life among the working people in the city of York. I continue:
A third of the poverty was due to low wages, and more than a third to unemployment. Today the investigators say the figure has dropped to less than 3 per cent. This vast improvement is due largely to full employment. But even if unemployment were as bad as in 1936, less than 8 per cent of the people would be in dire poverty, for they would have the aid of food subsidies, family allowances, school milk, and cheap milk for infants. York's children are taller and heavier today than in 1936.
The survey reveals that the demand for housing results from ability to pay for it. In 1936, nearly 7 per cent of families were grossly overcrowded, a figure that has fallen to less than one-half of one per cent. In estimating social gains, the investigators did not include the benefits of housing subsidies and rent restrictions, or of the national health service, without which many "would previously have gone without spectacles and without medical and dental help."
I would draw your attention, sir, to the last part of that paragraph, because the fact that they have some degree of total social security does not do away with the need for a higher pension. Therefore I do not think comparison with Britain in this matter is fair when things are altogether different. I think that statement should bolster my argument that we should not lightly boast of pensions as compared with those in other

countries, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare did when he made his speech in introducing the legislation.
Sir, I have said that the $40 a month is not enough in view of the cost of living. I repeat that. I believe too that the $60 ceiling is inequitable; that it is not compensated for by the imposition either of the sales tax or the tax upon corporations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this house will be fully aware of my feeling that there are improvements that should be made in this legislation. Nevertheless, now that we are reaching this final stage in this house I should like to say once again how pleased I am to be here and to be taking part in enacting this legislation which has the effect for the first time of abolishing the means test from old age pensions at least for those 70 years of age and over.
I said a moment ago that we were now at the last stage of the debate on this bill in this house. That of course reminds me of the fact that the bill has yet to be considered in the other place. I certainly hope the Senate will not treat this bill the way it treated the first old age pension bill passed by the House of Commons more than a quarter of a century ago. I am sure they will not take that action because of the fact that that place was represented on our committee last year and concurred in the recommendation made to both houses of parliament.
However, despite the high significance of what we are doing at this time, it does seem to me that this is not the time for us to sit back and be satisfied with what has been accomplished. It is an important step, but it is only the first step; and some of the other steps need to be taken just as soon as possible.
My colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), has just pointed out that we should look at the amount of the pension we are paying, not in the light of the number of dollars it represents or by way of comparison with other countries but rather in the light of our productive capacity at the present time. We should be asking ourselves whether we are treating our older people fairly, in the light of what we can now produce and in face of today's prices, when we ask them to live on $40 a month.
Since this legislation was first presented to the house at this session I have contended that the tremendous rise in the cost of living index since the old age security committee made its report in June, 1950, makes it imperative that there should be right now an increase in the amount of the pension. I took that

view as well on June 21 and June 23 of this year when we were debating old age assistance. On both occasions I suggested that the increase in the cost of living that had taken place since 1950, and more particularly since April, 1949, when the old age pension was first brought up to $40, makes it necessary to have the pension now at a figure of not less than $50 a month.
I go further and say that justice to our older people and the capacity for production that is ours today dictate that we should be paying at the present time an old age pension of not less than $60 a month. I feel that that same productive capacity makes it possible for us at the present time to provide for that pension of $60 at 65 years, without a means test, as well as adequate health and hospital services; and I hope it will not be long until in this parliament we will be dealing with that important phase of an over-all social security program.
At earlier stages of this debate, when I insisted that the amount of the pension should be increased to one or other of the higher figures I have suggested, either $50 or $60 a month, it was at first difficult to get any comment from the government. However, finally, a week ago today the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) did make the comment-and perhaps he also made it two weeks ago-that he had put $40 in the bill because that was the figure recommended in June, 1950, in the report of the committee.
I pointed out to him as strongly as I could last week that the cost of living index
had risen more than twenty-five points since June of 1950, and that required an increase in the amount of the pension.. The minister's answer to that reply on my part was that since the old age security committee had made its report there had been the developments in Korea which imposed certain demands upon this country's finances, and that there had been increased obligations under NATO.
I replied to that by pointing out that for defence purposes we are providing around $1,600 million a year at the present time. I pointed out further that once the need for increased defence expenditure became apparent it did not take any time at all for the government to introduce financial measures and make plans for organizing things in this country to raise that additional sum of money. I pointed out that to increase the amount of the pension to $50 a month would require only another $80 million a year, and to increase it to $60 a month would require only another $160 million.
Old Age Security
Even the higher figure of $160 million, which would increase the pension to $60 a month, is only one-tenth of the amount we are spending each year for defence purposes.
In his first speech on this measure the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to it as part of the effort we are making to build up our way of life, and to strengthen it. Indeed, he included it as part of our defence effort. I suggest that, even if it is to be on those terms, then another $80 million or $160 million spent in increasing the amount of the pension to $50 or $60 a month would be money well spent.
Thus far there has been no answer to that suggestion. Neither has there been any answer to the point I made, that in this fiscal year a surplus of $600 million has already been piled up. It would take only one-seventh of that surplus to increase the pension to $50 a month, and it would take less than one-quarter of it to increase the pension paid to our old people at 70 years of age and over to the amount of $60 a month.
It will take a little more than that to come along with the other phase of the program, namely, that of increasing the pension at the age of 65 as well, which certainly should be done. I submit, however, that if the government felt the same inner compulsion to deal with this problem that it feels in other matters, such as the pressing problem of defence, they could find that money quite easily. And I suggest, despite the comment of the Minister of Finance earlier today about the present taxation method deterring people from asking for increases in pensions, that that deterring effect will not be felt. Rather the people of Canada who, I am sure, support the idea of this universal pension, and who will be glad that we have got it started, will be saying more and more as time goes on, "Let us make it a really decent and fair pension." To do that, the amount will have to be increased.
I hope the day is not far distant when we will have a pension free of the means test at 65 years, and that in terms of today's prices and today's standard of living it will be not less than $60 a month. And as for that far-off day, when today's 21-year-olds will be retiring, I hope our productive capacity will be increased still more, and we will be able to pay a still higher pension. I hope, too, that even before that we will be making progress in the field of health insurance, hospitalization and medical care, and other important aspects of an over-all social security program.
94699-54j

Old Age Security
While I am on my feet, there are one or two other matters to which I should like to make reference. One of them I should have raised when we were in committee; but there were so many things to do at that time that this was overlooked. If, perchance, the minister does speak in closing the debate, he might take note of what I shall now say. I hold in my hand a copy of the application form used by those applying for the pension being provided under this new legislation. Question 10 on this form is as follows:
The applicant will please list below all periods of residence in Canada, from birth up to December, 1931. Duration of each period of residence is required. Give complete detail. If more space is needed, use an extra sheet and pin it to this form.
Then there are a number of blank lines on which the applicant can give the answers to question 10. When you turn over the form you come to question 11 which reads:
Addresses where you have resided since December, 1931. This is to include residence outside Canada as well as within Canada. Give complete detail. Changes in street address within the same city or town do not need to be given. If more space is needed, use extra sheet and pin to this form.
Then comes question 12 which reads:
Please give the names and addresses of two persons, not members of your family, who have knowledge of the facts of your residence, as given in questions 10 and 11 above.
My experience since this form has been in circulation is that there is no complaint at all about question 11. People accept that, as they know the law requires twenty years' residence in Canada and it seems logical to them that they should be asked to give full details as to their residence during the last twenty years. Although it is sometimes difficult to do so, they accept the necessity of finding two people, not members of the family, who can certify as to where they have lived during the past twenty years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That has been revised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I understand from the minister that the requirement as to information prior to 1931 is being changed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, the two references.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has not anticipated what is in my mind. The complaints I am getting refer to the requirements for all this detail prior to the last twenty years. As I say, applicants recognize that they have to give information for the last twenty years since they must have resided in Canada for that twenty-year period, but many people find it difficult to provide information in detail as to where they have lived prior to that period. For example, a Canadian-born person who had lived in Canada for seventy

years or more might find it difficult to give accurate information. I am glad to hear the minister say that the requirement as to the two names is being revised. I hope that instructions will be given to drop question 10, as I see no point to it at all. Question 11 seems sensible and should be enough for the purposes of the act.
Now may I say that it seems to me that the record should be kept straight at all times as to who is responsible for this pension and for the changes that have been made from time to time in our old age pension set-up. A friend of mine whose mother is in receipt of an old age pension and who lives in Ontario sent me a card a few days ago which was sent out with the October old age pension cheque, apparently to all old age pensioners in Ontario. The envelope is postmarked:
House of Assembly, Toronto, Ontario. October 30, 10.30 a.m., 1051
The postmark reads "War on Weeds". I do not know just what is the significance of that, but at any rate here is the card which bears the Ontario crest in the corner, and it reads:
This will remind you that the province of Ontario has completed all arrangements to have your old age pension cheque replaced by an old age security cheque for $40, commencing January, 1952.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has my hon. friend seen the public statement I made this morning commenting on that? I agree fully that I should have made it in this house, but I was advised by the efficient gentleman in charge of the orders of the day that if that question was placed on the orders of the day it would be ruled out. I could not agree with that advice, but I had to recognize it. My hon. friend may have seen the statement I made this morning pointing out the unfairness of that circular sent out by the minister of public welfare of Ontario. Many hon. members have spoken to me about it; the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and others brought it to my attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did notice the statement the Minister of National Health and Welfare gave to the press, and in fact I have the clipping here from this morning's Citizen which is headed, "Martin Blasts Ministers of Ontario Government". The minister repeated the wording on this card, so I need not read the rest of it. However, the last sentence reads:
Please be assured of our warm interest in your welfare, and that we shall be very happy to serve you at any time.
P.S. Especially now that there is an election coming up.
I am sorry; that last sentence has been written on there by my friend. The point I wish to make is that in replying to this the

minister does his best to take credit for the federal government. It is to his credit, and I want to underline this, that there is one reference to the parliament of Canada in his statement. I think this point needs to be emphasized. It was not the federal government of its own initiative or out of the abundance of its own belief in social security that produced this measure. The government did it because it has been prodded and pressed across the years. The government and hon. members know where a good deal of that prodding and pressing has come from. Now that we are finally passing the legislation we are doing it on the basis-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I suggest in fairness to his own position as well as to anybody else that he read the whole statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only reason I hesitate to do that is that this is the first time in my nine years in this house that I have been asked to extend my remarks. If the minister wants to put it on the record he can do it when he closes the debate later on. I agree with him that it is not correct to suggest to old age pensioners in Ontario that the change to the $40 old age security cheque was completed wholly and exclusively by the government of Ontario. As I have just been saying, this is the result not of action by any one provincial government or even by the government of Canada. We have this legislation by action of the parliament of Canada.
We are now in the process of passing a bill which is based upon a report made by a committee of both houses of parliament, which report was unanimous. This bill represents the work of this parliament, and I am glad to be part of a parliament which is presenting this legislation at this time.
However, if one is going to keep the record absolutely straight he must not forget that there has been a great deal of prodding and urging from the C.C.F. corner of this house across the years for legislation of this kind, for the removal of the means test, for paying the pension at a lower age and for making it a reasonable amount.
I could not help but notice the objective and honest statement about this matter which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on June 8, 1951, during the course of the federal byelections which were taking place at that time. This statement is attributed to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale), and it is a report of a radio address which he made during the course of the Brandon by-election campaign. I suggest that on its face it is a very objective, forthright and honest statement. The hon. member, although he was the candidate of a particular political party, did
Old Age Security
not even attempt to take credit for what that party had done but simply told the plain unvarnished truth. This was the statement of the hon. member for Brandon:
Replying to an opposition claim that the Liberal government is responsible for all the social security legislation on the Canadian statute books today, he said that social security measures in Canada today arise largely from the prodding given to the old parties by the C.C.F.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken previously in the present debate, not because I have not been intensely interested in all proceedings pertaining to granting security to the senior citizens of Canada but because it might possibly be interpreted as being a form of obstruction to the progress of the bill through parliament. I am eager to see the bill become law, to see it go into full operation across the country, and to see it amended from time to time to bring it more and more into conformity with what it ought to be, rather than what it particularly is at the present time. I imagine the minister himself will be the first to agree that there are many changes which are desirable, and I am sure he will be ready to make them as pressure throughout the country becomes great enough to strengthen his hand in doing so.
It is well to bear in mind, in a little elaboration of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, that in a democracy the government goes as fast as the people support it in going. This consideration is an important one. No government can go faster than the people will permit it in a democracy, so I say that as fast as public opinion across Canada will justify the minister in going forward I believe he will go forward.
I wish to make one or two observations upon tihe bill since it is so near now to passing that I could hardly be accused of delaying it unduly. I suggest that the minister now set his sights on $60 a month at the age of 60.


An hon. Member:: Make it 40.


John Horne Blackmore: Our friends of the C.C.F.
party have been advocating that recently in this debate. Social Creditors have not advocated it previously in .this debate although they have supported that idea for more years than a few.
The reason we must have $60 at 60 primarily arises from the fact that so many people are unable to obtain employment after they are 45 years of age. Let any man in this house who has passed the age of 60 imagine what would be his chances of securing employment in any one of the first fifteen categories of desirable occupations in Canada if he were alone and unaided in seeking such

Old Age Security
employment. The average employer in pretty nearly any business or occupation in Canada would reject a man's application if he were 60 years of age, without even reading his qualifications.
The meaning of that is clear. We have reached the point in this country through somebody's fault where the person who is 60 is unwanted. He is relegated to the scrap heap where he can starve to death, and no government is going to care from the time he reaches 60 until he is 65. There can only be one meaning to all that. If society is going to render it impossible for people to earn their daily bread after they reach the age of 60, then society must assume the responsibility for seeing that such people are provided with their daily bread. That ought to be so obvious as to be a truism. Therefore no matter how unacceptable the idea may appear to a great number of people in Canada they will have to adjust themselves to that thinking, and they will have to do so before too long, because people 60 years of age are faced with the task of making a living in a society which has become utterly uncongenial to all people who have reached that age and who seek employment.
People say: How in the world are we going to pay for all this? I realize that the task of paying for it is onerous. I realize that if we continue to endeavour to raise the money to pay old age pensions as great in amount and at as early an age as they ought to be paid we face a problem which, under the present orthodox financial system, constitutes almost an impossibility, and which will deprive people progressively of the freedom to use their money at all as they see fit. I believe everyone will agree with that in his calmer moments. What are we going to do? In our endeavour to enable our elderly people to live, are we going to reduce ourselves to a state of absolute slavery and dictatorship, a state in which the government tells us what we shall do with every five cent piece that we earn? Obviously the trend is exactly in that direction, unpleasant as the thought may be. Unless some sort of change comes in our ways of doing things, the goal of that trend is as inevitable as the coming of the seasons.
I should like to read from the fine report of the Bank of Canada under date of February 10, 1944, to the then minister of finance. I believe this will be of interest to people throughout the country, whether or not it will be of interest to members of this house. I wish to refer to a passage on page 12 because I
[Mr. Blackmore.l
believe it offers hope in this hour of anxiety. The passage reads as follows:
It seems likely, however-
The reference is to the post-war world.
-that at least 4,700,000 workers will be available for employment in civilian jobs, or at least 1,500,000 more than the number employed in that sector of the economy at the present time. A working force of this size-
He is speaking of Canada, of course.
-at present rates of efficiency-
Rates of efficiency have greatly increased since that time.
-will be able to produce a vastly greater volume of civilian goods and services than Canada has ever known before. By the same token, a vastly increased volume of consumption and capital development will be necessary if this output is going to be fully absorbed and high employment maintained.
Then I draw attention particularly to this sentence.
The adjustments required will clearly be of unprecedented magnitude, and bold planning on the part of labour, farm and business organizations, as well as governments, is urgently needed.
I suggest that up to the present time there has been in Canada no adjustment of unprecedented magnitude. The Minister of Finance is talking in a general way in terms that his predecessors of sixty years ago would have talked in. There has been no great adjustment in his thinking or in the thinking of the Department of Finance. If there has been any noticeable adjustment, it has been backward; for today it is more difficult by far for the minister to conceive of getting money by any other means than taxation than it was in 1914 when, under the Finance Act of that time, it was thoroughly conceivable for the finance department of Canada to create money debt free and spend it into circulation. I therefore say that in the Canadian finance department adjustments of unprecedented magnitude, if there have been any, have been backward or retrogade. I think I can challenge anyone in the Dominion of Canada to prove the contrary of what I say.
Where are the adjustments of unprecedented magnitude which have been made by the labour organizations, the farm organizations, the business organizations or by governments generally? There have been no adjustments of unprecedented magnitude. The leaders of every single one of those organizations are talking in terms identical with those that were talked in fifty years ago. I submit that it is high time the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and

the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in this country began to make in their thinking an adjustment of genuinely unprecedented magnitude. I urge on them that they be not too cocksure that their grandfathers one hundred years ago, the men of thirty years ago, or the men of even twenty years ago knew all that was to be known about finances, or that they themselves know everything that is to be known. They are following exactly the same pattern their fathers before them followed. They are trying moreover to make an economic system which was built up for scarcity function in an era of plenty or abundance, and are finding that economic system completely inadequate to the task which is being imposed upon it. Yet when you talk to them about it, all you have is a supercilious grin on their faces.
We must have something a little bit better than that. Otherwise this country, in its efforts to take care of its older people and to provide other social services in this nation, is going to go straight into dictatorship, and the dictatorship will so closely resemble that which our brother Joe Stalin is presiding over that it will take a high-class expert to point out the difference between the two; and that will not be because anybody in Canada wanted, or voted for, communism. It will simply be that the needs of the situation were such that they forced the government under the present financial system to adopt the measures which lead to communism.
I will say just one thing more. 1 will point to the fact that on several occasions I have mentioned to this house the Bradbury experiment of Britain. I suggest that the Bradbury experiment of Britain in world war I should be referred to with the most attentive scrutiny by everyone in power in this Dominion of Canada who desires to maintain the freedoms that our fathers fought and died for, and at the same time to provide for the needs of the situation in respect of social services. This will bring them to social credit principles only though the application of which security with freedom can be attained.
I support this bill, Mr. Speaker. My group will vote for it. But we vote for it on the strict understanding that there are several adjustments that need to be made right now.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.
Canada Lands Surveys Act AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CANADA LANDS SURVEYS ACT


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to repeal the Dominion Lands Surveys Act and to enact in substitution thereof the Canada Lands Surveys Act, a revision and consolidation of the former. Provision is made in the revised act for increased remuneration for the members of the board of examiners, the secretary of the board, and the special examiners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the name of the opposition, may I ask the minister if he will make an explanatory statement concerning this measure.


George Prudham: The proposed act, Mr. Speaker, entitled the Canada Lands Surveys Act, is a technical measure and is designed to bring up to date the federal law relating to the surveying of public lands coming under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This revision is the outcome of changed conditions, and of developments in modern surveying practices. A modification of the existing law has become necessary because of legislative changes in the last few years. The Dominion Lands Surveys Act has become inoperative because it applies to classes of lands coming under the old Dominion Lands Act, which was repealed last year and replaced by the Territorial Lands Act.
Three main changes are proposed in this new Canada lands surveys bill. First, the public lands to which it applies are redefined. Second, its provisions have been adapted to modern surveying practices. Third, the qualifications of surveyors have been redefined. There appears to be nothing controversial about this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I have a more complete statement which I should like to make on second reading.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: May I ask the minister if there have been many amendments to this act since the statutes were revised in 1927? I was not here at the opening, so I do not know whether that fact was mentioned.


George Prudham: I would prefer to answer that question in the committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the minister if he will answer that question now?

Canada Lands Surveys Act


George Prudham: I can give a brief history of the lands surveys bills since 1871. The first surveyor-general of dominion lands was appointed in March 1871, at the same time as the dominion lands branch was set up as part of the Department of Secretary of State. In April, 1872, the Dominion Lands Act was passed. With the creation of the Department of Interior in May, 1873, the management and control of dominion lands was transferred to that new department, with full machinery for the establishment of a complete organization of surveyors and inspectors of survey under the control of the surveyor-general. Down the years numerous alterations and variations in procedure have been authorized and the Dominion Lands Act has been amended. Changes were made in the act in 1908 and 1919.
With the transfer in 1930 of natural resources to the prairie provinces, the surveys of lands in these provinces passed to the provincial governments. At the time of the transfer, however, the parliament of Canada retained exclusive jurisdiction over lands within the provincial boundaries of the three provinces such as those forming part of the national parks and Indian reservations. The Dominion Lands Act was repealed in 1950 when the Territorial Lands Act was passed. The Dominion Lands Surveys Act thus had to be completely revised to establish its definite application.
To make the act adaptable to present day conditions and modern surveying practices, amending provisions were also necessary. The proposed bill is intended to apply to all public lands in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory, national parks of Canada and reserves as defined in the Indian Act. Some of the changes have been made with a view to facilitating survey operations and the establishment of the qualifications of' dominion land surveyors. With reorganization of certain departments in 1950, the administration of public lands in the two territories * and the national parks of Canada was placed under the authority of the Minister of Resources and Development, and that of Indian reserves and surrendered lands, as defined in the Indian Act, under the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The authority for surveying these lands was vested in the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
In view of the above, and also due to the fact that the minister responsible for the administration of these lands is more aware of the need for survey of the lands under his control, it is thought advisable to have the survey under the authority of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys,


who shall initiate surveys only at the request of the minister responsible for the administration of the land under his control.


Mr. Fulton:: There is one feature of the proposed bill, Mr. Chairman, which the explanation just given by the minister does not seem to cover. It is the necessity or the desirability, of changing the title of the act. As the minister has said, this bill will be closely related to what was the Dominion Lands Act, and in British Columbia the old railway belt act, which governed the relationship of the Dominion of Canada with respect to lands in British Columbia which were formerly under federal jurisdiction as the result of the granting of those lands in connection with the building of the railway.
All three of those statutes contain a reference to the names "dominion lands" and "dominion land surveyor". Although the Dominion Lands Act has been repealed and there has been substituted for it the Territorial Lands Act, I can see no reason why it should be necessary to change the name of this act from the Dominion Lands Surveys Act to the Canada Lands Surveys Act. Nothing that has been said by the minister indicates any necessity for that change of title. There are certain technical as well as sentimental reasons which may be advanced against the change, but I should like to hear from the minister, before embarking upon a further discussion as to why it is considered necessary to make this change in name.


George Prudham: This title, the Dominion Lands Act, is a title of an obsolete act that has been repealed. It was thought that the new title would be more suitable in that it would avoid any confusion with the old act. It is more suitable because it applies to surveying practices as well as to lands under the jurisdiction of the federal government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The present Dominion Lands Surveys Act applies to surveying practices. I cannot appreciate that anything which has yet been said shows why "dominion" is an obsolete name. It may be of interest if we could hear from the minister or the government as to just what makes the name obsolete.
Probably it is true that it is necessary to revise certain of the provisions of the act with respect to technical requirements, surveying, and so on, and to that there is no objection. Notwithstanding that, as I have said, there are certain technical as well as sentimental objections to changing the name, and I should like to detail some of the objections based upon the system that we have in our own province, where in the railway belt, which was that portion of the central part of the province first settled, all the initial

surveys were carried out by dominion land surveyors. Let me emphasize, the title was "dominion land surveyor." If the name is changed from "dominion lands surveys" to "Canada lands surveys" presumably then the surveyors are to be known as "Canada land surveyors". But I ask hon. members to realize that all the old crown grants and the certificates of title which are carried down from there refer to "dominion land surveyors". It seems to me that it will create unnecessary complications and difficulties, in a technical sense alone, if it is going to be changed now to "Canada land surveyors."
Looking through the act itself, which is quite lengthy, I see numerous references to the old name and to "dominion lands" which, Mr. Chairman, is simply a phrase to distinguish dominion lands from provincial lands. I can see no good reason for the change. In fact I can see a number of what might be called technical legal objections and difficulties which will be created by the change of name. Since it is not necessary in order to provide for the change of qualifications, and so on, to change the name, I would strongly urge that the name of the act be left as it was before. As a matter of fact it would make the amending that much simpler.
These are only what I might call the technical legal objections to the change of name. As I said, there are other, sentimental objections, which I think are probably too obvious-I trust they are too obvious-to hon. members to need enlargement. Therefore I will leave that for the time being and content myself with simply saying that up to the present at any rate nothing much has been said by the minister that indicates to me any compelling necessity of changing the name; and everything I can see indicates the advantage of leaving the name as it is now. Therefore when the bill is introduced I hope it will be found possible to leave the legislative provisions as they are except that the name will not be changed but will stand as "Dominion Lands Surveys Act."


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I quite agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that it does seem unnecessary to change this name from "dominion" to "Canada". Perhaps it is necessary to make a revision and consolidation of this act, and so far as that is concerned I have nothing to say. But just why there should be a change from "dominion" to "Canada" I cannot understand. The minister has said that the name "dominion" is obsolete. I would like him-


George Prudham: I did not say that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister said it was obsolete and this was a more suitable name.
Canada Lands Surveys Act


George Prudham: No; I said the Dominion Lands Surveys Act was obsolete.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: While you are amending the act why do you have to amend the title? Is the title obsolete, or is the act itself obsolete? That is the point I wish to make. If the act itself is obsolete there is no reason in the world why it cannot be amended as a dominion act as well as a Canada act. I do riot see any point at all in the arguments of the minister. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, on different occasions in this house we have heard requests for a change from "Dominion day" to "Canada day" and other requests along that line.
The hon. member for Kamloops spoke about the sentimental attachment to the name "dominion". I might say that I have reasons for placing some emphasis on the sentimental attachment. As hon. members know, I come from the province of New Brunswick. My home was at Gagetown in New Brunswick, and the man who was mainly responsible for Canada being called the Dominion of Canada was born in Gagetown. Personally I see no reason at all why there should be this agitation, not only with respect to this act but with respect to other acts and in other matters which come before this house, for us to change the word "dominion" and put in its place the word "Canada". The word "dominion" must be satisfactory to a good many people across this country. I understand that a good many companies across Canada use the word "dominion". Down in Nova Scotia we have the Dominion Coal and Steel Company; we have the Dominion Rubber Company, the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company; the Dominion Bridge Company and the Dominion Bank. The word "dominion" is very popular, and from a sentimental point of view we may say it is used extensively across this country. I for one cannot see why this should be considered as an obsolete term.
There are those who might say that the word "dominion"-and I think this is the argument that is used-signifies that we are placed in a position which indicates that someone else has dominion over us. I do not think that ever was the intention. When Sir Leonard Tilley suggested the word "dominion" there were four provinces of Canada, the province of New Brunswick, the province of Ontario, the province of Nova Scotia and the province of Quebec. When they were looking for a term it was said that he, who was a very religious man as most of us are in New Brunswick of course, was reading his bible and he read one of the texts in scripture which said something about dominion from sea to sea. I think the idea was that Canada, we the people of Canada, should have dominion from
850	HOUSE OF
Canada Lands Surveys Act sea to sea, not that someone else would have dominion over us. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I do not see why we as a Canadian people should feel that it is necessary in this act and the many other acts in this country to change the name from "dominion" to "Canada". Mind you, I have no objection to "Canada". I am very proud indeed of the Dominion of Canada, and this idea that the word "dominion" places us in some sort of a subservient position is entirely wrong. I think this house and the people of Canada are entitled to some further explanation from the minister as to why he is changing the name of this act, as I believe the names of many other acts are to be changed in so far as the word "dominion" is concerned. A letter appeared in the November 10 issue of Toronto Saturday Night with reference to this word "dominion", and if the committee will give me their indulgence I should like to read it.
Names for Canada.
Recently in SN's accumulated during a vacation, I noticed a letter from L. Kreutzweiser in which he speaks of the word dominion as "meaningless" for Canada. In the British North America Act we are told that the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form one dominion under the name of Canada and that the birthday of Canada's constitution July 1 is named by statute Dominion Day. Also it is said that the founder fathers wished to have the name dominion used because of that lovely verse in the Bible, "And His dominion shall be from sea to sea." So, it is far from being meaningless for Canada.
Then what is wrong with the words federal and national? Nothing, of course; perfectly good1 useful words as thousands of others are.
But why change a unique and beloved title just for the sake of change, or to ape someone else? Names can mean much, W. Shakespeare notwithstanding. Let us keep dominion and royal with their pleasant associations, hoping that Canada may live up to being a dominion and royal in the best sense of the words.
This is the letter from Halifax, signed by M. Lee. I see no reason why "royal" and "dominion" should be the subjects of attack, as they have been occasionally in the house. I come from the constituency of Royal. If the committee on elections were to say, "We do not want to have a constituency named Royal; it must be named Canada," hon members will see the position in which I would be placed. I would be the representative from Canada.


An hon. Member:: What a man!


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And what a responsibility would be placed upon my shoulders. This may sound facetious, but I do say we should not forget our traditions of the past. We have been the Dominion of Canada now for almost one hundred years. Why throw away all our traditions and grasp at something new, which I do not believe would help us or place us in a better position in the eyes of


people in other countries of the world. I can see no reason for making this change from "dominion" to "Canada", and I suggest we are entitled to an explanation from the minister as to why it is being done.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak on this resolution.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Donald MacInnis: You will hear me as soon as I have anything to say. It was not my intention to speak on the resolution because it deals with matters with which usually I do not concern myself, and with which perhaps I am not qualified to deal. However, I would say something in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Royal. I hope he will not take amiss anything I say, because I say most sincerely that there is no member in the house for whom I have greater respect.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is mutual.


An hon. Member:: Don't spoil it.


Donald MacInnis: No, I will not spoil it, I assure you. But I do not agree with the position he has taken in regard to this small change in the resolution before us. The arguments with which he supported his objections are not the logical arguments he usually brings forward when dealing with questions debated here. We should not delude ourselves as to what the term "dominion" as applied to Canada, means-or at least what it did mean. It was not in my opinion because Canada holds dominion from sea to sea. That was not the sense in which the term was used. The term generally used was "British dominions beyond the seas", and Canada was one of those British dominions. New Zealand was another of those British dominions; Australia was another, although in their acts, of confederation the term "dominion" may not have been used.
The hon. member for Royal referred to the bill to change "Dominion day" to "Canada day". I am on sound ground now, because I opposed that change. I did not see any sense in making such a change. But there seems to me good reason why this change should be made because, after all, Canada's status has changed during the years. Today I do not think many people in Britain, let us say, refer to Britain's dominions beyond the seas. Canada is a sister nation in the commonwealth of nations. As such I think the name Canada is the name that should be used in all our statutes, and I am quite satisfied that we are not-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could not the Dominion of Canada be considered a sister nation in the commonwealth of nations?


Donald MacInnis: Quite, yes. But to me, and to a great many other people, the word "dominion" as applied in the sense it is applied in relation to the name "Canada" is no longer applicable. It is not the proper word. If dropping the word "dominion" were taking anything from Canada, if it were going to do any harm to our relations with any other part of the commonwealth, I would be opposed to dropping the word. But as it is not going to hurt Canada, as it is not going to hurt our relations with the commonwealth, as it is not going to hurt any other member of the commonwealth, and is a much more applicable term at the present time in the light of our place not only in the commonwealth but in the world, I approve of the change.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was hoping that the minister, rather than the hon. member for Vancouver East, would have replied to the hon. member for Royal and myself. I take it however that the minister intends to make no reply.


Donald MacInnis: I did not pretend to be replying either to the hon. member for Royal or the hon. member for Kamloops. I was merely saying something for myself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister does not think anything the hon. member for Royal, the hon. member for Kamloops or the hon. member for Vancouver East has said merits reply. Well, of course, we are getting used to that attitude on the part of the government. However, we have our own opinions in these matters.
I would like to say one or two words further, having raised the point initially. I have to say that I take issue with the hon. member for Vancouver East. I should prefer to be taking issue with the minister, because I would prefer to be dealing with something he was said by way of explanation of why the change is being made. But so far the minister has not said anything in explanation; therefore we are left to conclude that there is no good reason for the change, except perhaps some passing whim or fancy of the government which, thus far, they have not attempted to justify. I think it should be realized by hon. members when dealing with this matter-and it has been raised seriously -that the word "dominion" has always been part of the title of this country.


Mr. Arsenault:: Never.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was used in the British North America Act.


Bona Arsenault: Never.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One dominion under the name of Canada.


Bona Arsenault: That is right.
Canada Lands Surveys Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has given the quotation I was about to give myself. This country was united into one dominion under the name of Canada. Those are the words used in the British North America Act.


An hon. Member:: Away back in 1867.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And, ever since, this country has been known as the Dominion of Canada. Quite unlike the hon. member for Vancouver East, I see nothing objectionable, or even questionable-even in the light of the present-day developments of this country-implied by the use of the word dominion; because the country is developing and always was developing, and so do words and connotations of titles. To my mind, as a Canadian, the word "dominion" means exactly what the hon. member for Royal ascribed to it, namely a country-a sovereign nation- having dominion from sea to sea. And it has for me, and for many other Canadians, a connotation that must be and should be admitted above and outside of that. It has the connotation, in every respect, which the hon. member for Royal attributed to it, the connotation of being one of His Majesty's dominions. That, to many Canadians, is a very precious and meaningful connotation, and one we cannot lightly see dropped from the name of our country. We cannot see it dropped without making objection.
It may be said that this is a small matter, that it is only changing the name of a statute. It is true that is all it is in this particular instance, but unfortunately it must be said that in this we see a step in a progression which some of us have observed going on with increasing misgivings over the years. It is as though it were regarded as a prerogative, drawn to itself by this government, to change the name of our country and its connotations, as of their own right, without the consent of the people. It is that progression to which I think objection should be taken at this time. It is because I object to that steady series of steps that I raise this point at this moment.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I think there has been progression, and I can say at once that it is the policy of this government when statutes come up for review or consolidation to replace the word "dominion" with the word "Canada". There are some people in this country who rather like the name of Canada. That was the name given to the new nation by the British North America Act at the time it came into being. Section 3 of that act provides:
3. It shall be lawful for the queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy council, to declare by proclamation that, on and

Canada Lands Surveys Act
after a day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of this act, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be one dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and be one dominion under that name accordingly.
At that time it seemed to be quite immaterial whether the country and the people thereof were described as Canada and Canadians or as the Dominion of Canada and people of	the	Dominion of Canada.There has been a constant progression that some people in this country have attempted to impede and have resented, but nevertheless that progression culminated	in the	Statute of Westminster which recognized the equality of all the sister nations of the commonwealth. That progression has been resented by some, but not by the majority of the people of Canada or by the party that supports this government. I think that party will be prepared to support this government in the policy of replacing the word "dominion" with "Canada" in the statutes when they come up for review.
That policy is quite in line with the policy that was followed in the United Kingdom when they changed the name of the department that deals with the affairs of the sister nations from dominions relations office to commonwealth relations office. That development coincided with the coming into being of other sister nations who had not been known as dominions and who did not wish to be known as dominions. Those are nations with which we wish to conserve the family relationship which exists among the nations of our commonwealth.
In the official documents that come now from the United Kingdom the word dominion is gradually being dropped in deference to those other members of the organization who are not dominions and who have achieved a status with which the word "dominion" would be somewhat at variance.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In deference to the wishes of this government.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In deference to wishes that were expressed not only by this government but by others, and in conformity with the wishes of this government. This government is willing to take the verdict of the majority of the Canadian people on that stand. This government believe that the majority of the Canadian people feel that it is a privilege to be a Canadian citizen and are quite satisfied to be described as such instead of being described as citizens of a dominion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Dominion of Canada citizens.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My hon. friend was not there when the statute was drawn. Perhaps if he had been there he would have drawn it otherwise than it is drawn, but it is drawn to describe this country not as the Dominion of Canada but as a dominion under the name of Canada. For us that name is sufficient.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would not ordinarily take it upon myself to answer or refute anything the Prime Minister has said, except that he has sought to imply that those of us who attach some importance to, or who show some sentimental liking for, the "dominion" are necessarily not as proud as he claims to be, of the word "Canada." It is that implication which I rise to refute. Those of us who attach importance to the retention of the word "dominion" are as proud as the Prime Minister says he is of being Canadians.
Furthermore, it is not correct to say that the development of the Statute of Westminster was concomitant with any growing desire to cast off the word "dominion". The hon. member for Royal and those of us who belong to this party and who are at the moment asserting that there is importance in the retention of the word "dominion" have contributed as much as members of the Prime Minister's party to the development of the status of equality and sisterhood of nations which is the present status of members of the commonwealth.
I shall not say more, but I do regret that on this occasion, instead of discussing the matter on its merits-that is, whether we should try to preserve a link with the past and with what some of us think the word "dominion" means-the Prime Minister has tried to imply that which is not the case, namely that in doing so we are trying to perserve some form of subjection to another country, which I know the Prime Minister, upon reflection, will realize is not the case.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not want to prolong the discussion. We should endeavour to preserve all those links with the past that are useful and worth preserving, but it seems to me that in the evolution of the commonwealth the time has come when the sister nations co-equal in status should be known as nations and not as dominions. I know there is still a temptation in some quarters to refer to the overseas nations as "our dominions". Even the hon. member for Kamloops in discussing the matter referred to His Majesty's dominions rather than the co-equal nations of the commonwealth recognizing one crown and one king. After all, according to the theory we now follow His Majesty is King of Canada and king of each of the other countries of the commonwealth.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Can you explain why we are also doing away with the word "royal"?


Major James William Coldwell: I am not discussing that matter at the moment. I just want to say that I hope we shall use the word "Canada" and I hope our friends overseas will realize that we are not a dominion in the sense that they sometimes use the term. During the war one great statesman across the seas, for whom we have the greatest respect, used to refer to the overseas countries as "our dominions." I hope we shall not hear that phrase used again when it is necessary to refer to the several members of the commonwealth of nations. I think the government is wise when amending these acts to use a name that more nearly visualizes the status that we have achieved in the commonwealth.


George Prudham: At the time the original
Dominion Lands Surveys Act was passed I think the word "dominion" had a much better application. The federal government had control of and jurisdiction over a great deal of the lands in Canada. Since that time the lands of Canada have been vested in the provinces. Dominion from sea to sea had some application when the original act was passed, but today the lands that are vested in the right of Canada are few, and they are specifically set out in the proposed new bill. As I said in the beginning, the word "Canada" has a much better application to the bill that we are intending to bring forward than the word "dominion." I have nothing against the word "dominion", but I like the word "Canada", and so far as the bill we propose to introduce is concerned it has a much better application.


John Horne Blackmore: It is good that the people who read Hansard should know that there are other members in this house who take a similar view to that of the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Kamloops. The Prime Minister used a pretty specious argument when he tried to sneer against those who desire to maintain the word "dominion" as not being proud of the word "Canada". The Prime Minister will have to get right out and travel before he carries the name "Canada" as gloriously as the two hon. members who have spoken, and who have gone into the thick of battle with "Canada" on their shoulders.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, one sneer calls for another. If members are going to be calm and sensible about this whole thing we will be calm and sensible and we will use
Canada Lands Surveys Act good arguments; but if members want to use offensive arguments such as the one the Prime Minister used-


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should withdraw the word "sneer".


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member wants the word taken back I will take it back but whatever word will fit the occasion I want to use. Certainly the remarks of the Prime Minister were an insult to every person in this house and in the Dominion of Canada who loves the name "dominion". There is no question about that at all.
Let me comment on this matter for a minute. It may be all right to take the word "dominion" out of all these names of acts and so forth. Not very long ago an impetuous group in this house brought in a bill and jammed it through, with the help of a bit of confusion on the part of the Conservatives and a good many Liberals, to change the name "Dominion day" to "Canada day". That is right on the statute books of Canada today.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


John Horne Blackmore: It is as far as this house is concerned.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The other place saved that.


John Horne Blackmore: How many people did you find in the Dominion of Canada wanting to drop the word "dominion"? I did not find any, unless they happened to be in one province, and I did not go there. I do not think I would have found in that province that the majority of opinion was strongly against the use of the word "dominion" in "Dominion day".
I wish to turn now to a matter which I raised once before in the house, but to which no attention was ever paid. Why was it that without the consent of the Canadian people and without the consent of this house, without consulting the Canadian people or consulting this house, the use of the song "Rule, Britannia" was discontinued in the Canadian navy? That is just an example.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The navy could not sing it.


John Horne Blackmore: The Prime Minister can say that his party is in power and the people are back of his party. When that party goes to the polls what they will rely on in large measure for re-election will be their old age pension and family allowance records-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: -and all that kind of thing, and when people vote the party back into power-

Canada Lands Surveys Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an insult to the
people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: It is a figure of speech.


An hon. Member:: He means it.


John Horne Blackmore: Why not let me finish my speech? I know what I want to say.


An hon. Member:: Make it good.


John Horne Blackmore: The Liberal party had a
great majority, but what popular majority did they get? When you count the number of votes the Liberal party got compared with the number the other three parties got, then they have not much to crow about.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us go back to the last election when the Liberal party was voted into power with an exceedingly slender popular majority on the basis of actual votes cast.


An hon. Member:: A minority.


John Horne Blackmore: All right, a minority. That is better still.


An hon. Member:: Forty-nine per cent.


John Horne Blackmore: My hon. friend points out that the Liberal party got 49 per cent of the votes, and on the strength of 49 per cent of the people of Canada it arrogates to itself the right to discontinue the use of "Rule, Britannia" in the Canadian navy.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Can you beat that for
specious reasoning?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. "Rule, Britannia" is not under discussion here.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I grant that we are not discussing "Rule, Britannia".


An hon. Member:: Canada never will be
saved.


John Horne Blackmore: We are discussing the
progressive steps by which the Liberal party, in power today with 49 per cent of the people of Canada voting for it in the last election, is arrogating to itself the privilege and authority of removing just as rapidly as it can all indication that Canada is a part of the great British commonwealth of nations.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Horne Blackmore: We will see. I mentioned the instance of "Rule, Britannia" as a case in point. If you want an example of government by order in council in the most flagrant form, with no justification Whatsoever, there you have it.
TMr. Blackmore.]


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: I join those who raise their voices against-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Talk about reductio ad
absurdum.


John Horne Blackmore: -any further attempts to disintegrate the British commonwealth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Members may laugh. It
is easy enough to laugh.


Mr. Harkness:: That is all they can do,
John.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right. There is
no reason why they should do that sort of thing.
We have a body of men operating from a neighbour nation who are deliberately seeking to disintegrate the British commonwealth. Every move we make in this parliament in that direction is directly playing into the hands of those evil men. We must all realize that. It would not take very long for me to assemble a quantity of evidence in support of what I say which even the most rabid person in this house could not deny.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman-


John Horne Blackmore: I simply reaffirm my
direct opposition to any further steps toward disintegration or dismemberment of the British commonwealth such as the one to which the two hon. members to whom I have referred have raised objection.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Prudham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, respecting the surveys of public lands of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ascertain whether I can get the indulgence of the house with respect to the order of business. It has nothing to do with "Rule, Britannia", I may say. On the order paper, as item No. 3, there is the following:
Second reading of Bill No. 10, an act to approve the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, signed on the twenty-ninth day of June, 1951*.-The Minister of Finance.
On Tuesday it is necessary for me to leave to go to the meetings of the NATO committee.

On Monday the house is to proceed with the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Tomorrow, unfortunately, for other reasons, I cannot be available. I realize that I could not expect the bill to be debated tonight; but if the house were prepared to give me unanimous consent to make my explanatory statement, and then have the debate adjourned, it would be a convenience to me. I have a comparatively short statement. I think it would take me only ten minutes or, at the most, fifteen. I would not expect any hon. member to be in a position to discuss the matter tonight. I know a number of hon. members will be interested. As I say, if I could get the unanimous consent of the house to do as I have suggested, it would be a convenience to me.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not think there would be any objection to that procedure, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM FINANCIAL AGREEMENT APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT RESPECTING INTEREST-FREE PROVISION OF LOAN

Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of Bill No. 10, to approve the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom signed on the 29th day of June, 1951.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to approve the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, signed on June 29, 1951. This agreement provides that the interest-free provision of the loan made to the government of the United Kingdom in 1942 will continue until January 1, 1954, and that the other arrangements with respect to the loan will continue until that date. The two governments agree to enter into discussions before January 1, 1954, respecting the interest on, and terms of repayment of, the balance of the loan then outstanding.
The 1942 loan to the United Kingdom in the amount of $700 million was made under the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942. It will be recalled that in the early part of the war and prior to mutual aid arrangements, the larger part of the United Kingdom deficit with Canada had been met either by the repatriation of Canadian securities held by British investors or by the accumulation by Canada of sterling balances in London. These balances were acquired through the purchase of sterling by the Canadian government through the foreign exchange control board in order to make Canadian dollars available to the United Kingdom. By this interim or transitional
Canada-United Kingdom Financial Agreement form of financial assistance, we made good our assurances that the United Kingdom could continue to purchase in Canada all essential supplies required for its war effort without being restricted by shortages of Canadian dollars.
By early 1942 these balances 'had assumed considerable proportions, amounting to approximately $1,000 million. The War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942, provided for a settlement of these balances already accumulated, and provided the means by which the United Kingdom was able to continue her purchases of food, raw materials, munitions and other war supplies in Canada during the subsequent year. The accumulation of sterling was dealt with by the conversion of the larger part of the balances into a formal long-term loan to the government of the United Kingdom, payable in Canadian dollars. This was the $700 million non-interest-bearing loan. The remaining sterling balances were used in the purchase of Dominion of Canada and Canadian National Railways securities then held by British investors.
Section 4 of the 1942 act provided that the obligation to be taken from the government of the United Kingdom to secure the $700 million loan should be in such form and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council might approve, provided, however, that no interest was to be payable under it in respect of any period prior to the termination of the war. On June 1, 1942, an order in council was passed approving the terms and form of the certificate of obligation, P C. 4527, dated June 1, 1942. The specific terms of the obligation so approved were:
(a)	that it should be payable on demand on or after the date fixed by the governor in council as the date of the termination of the war;
(b)	that it should be for the sum of $700 million in Canadian currency or such lesser amount as might be owing on the above-mentioned date; and
(c)	that it should bear interest only from the above-mentioned date until the date of payment at such rate as might be agreed upon by the two governments.
At the same time, as the then minister of finance explained to the house when speaking on the resolution preceding introduction of the bill, the British chancellor of the exchequer agreed with the minister of finance that funds arising from the redemption or repayment of Canadian securities owned in the United Kingdom and the proceeds of any sales of such Canadian securities to persons outside the United Kingdom, would be applied towards the reduction of the loan.
During the war the proceeds of all such redemptions and sales of Canadian securities held in the United Kingdom were applied
856	HOUSE OF
Canada-United. Kingdom Financial Agreement against the loan. Late in 1946 a modification was made in these arrangements which had the effect of encouraging desirable new direct investments in Canada by British investors. Early post-war investments in Canada by United Kingdom residents were severely limited by restrictions arising from the shortage of foreign exchange. Because of these circumstances, Canada was unable to take advantage of British industrial technique and "know-how" to the extent which was clearly desirable in the interests of our economic growth and industrial development. In order to enable Canada to have access to these particularly desirable forms of British investment in this country it was agreed in December, 1946, that a portion of the proceeds of the redemption and sale of these securities could be made available in appropriate cases for reinvestment in Canada. It was agreed, for instance, that new direct "brick and mortar" investments in Canada, resulting in the development of new industrial enterprises in Canada, or the expansion of existing United Kingdom-owned industrial enterprises in Canada, could be offset against the amounts realized from the redemption and sale of securities for the purpose of calculating the amount to be applied from time to time in repayment of this loan. Also in 1948 a similar offset arrangement was made to enable the United Kingdom to purchase, for use in her international air services, aircraft manufactured in Canada. During the last four years, total offsets in respect of new direct investments in Canada and the purchase of aircraft in Canada have amounted to $59-8 million.
After the end of the war, the position of the 1942 loan was reviewed when the postwar credit of $1,250 million was under discussion. It was decided to continue the interest-free provision until January 1, 1951. This was authorized by parliament in the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946. The agreement reached between the two governments at that time provided also that the other arrangements respecting the loan would continue in effect and that the two governments would enter into discussions before January 1,	1951, regarding
interest on, and terms of repayment of, any balance of the loan then outstanding. Discussions between the two governments were begun before the end of last year, and on June 29 last the two governments entered into an agreement under which the existing arrangements respecting the loan would be continued for a further three-year period. That is the agreement which this act asks authority to confirm.
Net repayments on the loan under the arrangements I have described have, to date,


totalled $470-2 million. The outstanding principal amount of the loan has consequently been reduced from $700 million to $229-8 million as at October 25 last. This means that up to the present the loan has been repaid at the average rate of approximately $50 million each year. This rate of repayment, I feel, can be regarded as satisfactory having in mind all the circumstances that have prevailed in the post-war period. Furthermore, under the arrangements which I have described, the United Kingdom has been able to make substantial repayments on this loan, incurred during the war, without any direct burden on its post-war balance of payments. The repayments have come out of proceeds from the redemption or sale of Canadian securities held in the United Kingdom, and have not had to be taken from the current proceeds of British exports.
After a careful review of all the considerations relating to this loan and its repayment, it was felt that the arrangements in effect had proved satisfactory and that they should be continued for a further period. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into with the United Kingdom government on June 29, 1951, to extend the interest-free provision and to continue the other arrangements with respect to the repayment of the loan until January 1, 1954. Prior to this date the two governments will enter into discussions on the question of interest on, and the terms of repayment of, any balance of the loan then outstanding. The bill we are now considering asks for the approval of this agreement.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We are glad to have had this statement from the minister. I know there are a great many members who wish to speak on this matter, so I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve the agreement on the status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, national representatives and international staff, and to provide for carrying out the obligations, duties and rights of Canada thereunder.


Major James William Coldwell: We are going to get an explanation, are we not?


Mr. Lesage:: I intended io make a short statement when we reach the committee stage.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, make it now.


Jean Lesage: The purpose of this resolution is to make way for the introduction of a bill approving the agreement regarding the immunities and privileges of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that is for the organization itself, national representatives and international staff. The agreement was signed in Ottawa by all the members of NATO on September 20, 1951. It follows generally the form of agreement which, beginning with the general convention on privileges and immunities of the United Nations in 1946, has been adopted with more or less minor variations to define the privileges and immunities of practically all important international organizations. Certain departures have, however, been made from the precedents in order to meet the particular requirements of NATO.
NATO differs from other international organizations in that it has subsidiary bodies in permanent session in several countries. Other organizations generally only have a permanent seat in the country where they have their headquarters and it has been usual, in addition to the general agreement defining privileges and immunities which all member states are expected to accord, to have a special headquarters agreement between the organization and the member state in whose territory the headquarters are located. An example of this headquarters agreement would be the agreement between the government of Canada and the United Nations concerning the international civil aviation organization with its headquarters in Montreal.
This headquarters agreement covers the special requirements of the organization in the country where it has its headquarters and, in particular, grants to any national representative stationed permanently in that country a rather more liberal scale of privileges than is given to national representatives under the general agreement. Since NATO has permanent bodies in several countries it has been found convenient to include in the general agreement provisions, mainly concerning national representatives, which are generally found in a headquarters agreement. The agreement is attached to the bill as a schedule, and will be distributed as soon as we reach first reading.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know that the house has ever before come to a resolution of this kind with less information, apart from the statement made by the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Lesage), as to the effect of the resolution, than in the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization case of the one now before us. For the life of me I cannot understand why the agreement which is referred to in the resolution was not distributed before this time. Seeing this resolution on the order paper, I communicated with the Department of External Affairs at noon today and asked if it was not possible to obtain copies of this agreement. I was told it was not, and that copies could not yet be distributed. When the house is called upon to deal with a resolution that contemplates the introduction of a measure approving this agreement, of whose importance I have no doubt-


Jean Lesage: May I interrupt the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I discussed this matter with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), and he agreed that, for the reasons I gave him, it was not necessary to distribute the agreement before we reached the stage of first reading. It would be attached to the bill, and the agreement would be generally similar to other agreements dealing with international organizations. Moreover, when we discussed the matter I had had an opportunity of consulting the government about the request he had made to send the bill to the external affairs committee. I was in a position to tell the hon. member that it would go to the external affairs committee after second reading. I am saying that now for the benefit of the hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the parliamentary assistant for the information he has given. I am glad to hear that it is the intention to send this measure to the committee on external affairs for review. While I understand that the hon. member for Peel did not ask that copies be struck off especially for distribution heretofore, I should have thought that when copies were being made for the bill some of them could have been circulated. I am not suggesting the bill should have been circulated in advance of the resolution, but the agreement itself, so that opportunity might be taken during the debate on this resolution to ask questions which might be helpful in expediting the later stages of the measure.
We have not the agreement before us. It is not easy to follow a matter of this kind and to appreciate fully the contents of the agreement, merely upon hearing a brief statement. I simply say that I believe the purpose intended to be served by the resolution stage on a measure of this kind, cannot be served while copies of the agreement are not available to members.


Major James William Coldwell: too, Mr. Speaker, wondered what this was all about. I listened to the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Lesage) who has just introduced
858	HOUSE OF
North Atlantic Treaty Organization the resolution, and I regret that we have not more information regarding what appears to be a rather important matter.
As I listened to the hon. member I heard him say that this dealt with immunities in connection with NATO. I am going to take this opportunity to say something I have intended to say concerning the privileges and immunities of members of parliament in connection with NATO. I happened to be in the city of Ottawa when the NATO conference met here. In common with all other members of parliament I was very happy indeed that we were able to act as hosts to this great organization; but there were certain violations of the privileges of members of parliament that I do not think should go unnoticed. As a matter of fact one of the great privileges of parliament in this country, and in other commonwealth countries, is the right of members of parliament at all times to have access to this chamber and to the building, particularly when the House of Commons is in session, as it was in September, it having been only adjourned. I see sitting in the house other hon. members who were in the same position I was in, having been told that we could not enter the building unless we had a pass, which we were to show not to the staff of the House of Commons, our own protective staff, who knew us all, but to personnel of the army, navy and air force who were placed in charge of security in this building. I think that was somewhat of a slight to our very efficient protective staff, which was good enough to give all the protection necessary within this building to Their Majesties the King and Queen when they visited here in 1939 and to Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh when they visited us lately. True, there was some augmentation during the royal visits of the security staff by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, some of whose personnel are to be found on parliament hill from time to time, and who, had it been necessary to give further protection at the time of the NATO conference, could have been used as auxiliaries to our own protective staff. But, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the rights and privileges of this House of Commons must be safeguarded. When these privileges are interfered with a protest should be made. I made that protest in the form of refusing to show a pass to enter this building, on the ground that I had the right to enter the building without a pass. I must say that I was treated with the utmost courtesy by those who challenged me both in entering this building and in moving around it and from parts of which I was also excluded.

I thought, Mr. Speaker, that one should draw the matter to your attention so that on a future occasion, if this country should be host again to NATO or a similar organization and it is found wise and advisable to use the facilities of this house, every precaution should be taken to see that the rights and the privileges of members of this house are in no way interfered with. In so far as my own office arrangements were concerned, when I heard that office space would be required I told the Sergeant-at-Arms that they were welcome to use my office if they needed it. Fortunately they did not; but speaking on behalf of some of my colleagues and members of this house whose offices were taken over without their permission and whose private files and documents were in those offices, I say that should not have been done without first obtaining permission from the hon. members whose offices were used on that occasion. But that does not concern me personally because my office was not interfered with. I used it all the time. The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that no attempt should have been made to stop members of parliament coming into this building and to demand from those members a pass to enter this building. If our protective staff had been looking after the security of the conference I have no doubt they would have recognized us and would not have demanded the production of a pass. I bring this to your attention-


Donald MacInnis: That is why they were changed.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend suggests to me that that is why they were changed. I do not know that this is so, but since we are dealing with the immunities of members of NATO may I suggest that on all future occasions the age-old immunities and privileges of members of this parliament should be as carefully safeguarded as any of the immunities and privileges that we are by legislation now about to confer on members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Let me repeat, I was glad to see them here. I think Canada was honoured in being host to that organization, but in acting as host I think the rights and privileges which have been safeguarded for hundreds of years by members of the parliaments of our commonwealth should not have been contravened as they were in September of this year.


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: During the conference NATO held here I had occasion to come to the parliament buildings, although I came in fear and trembling as the result of a letter that I believe we all received stating that certain privileges would be denied us during that week. I had no pass when I

came through the main entrance of this building. I was stopped by someone wearing a military uniform; but one of our own protective staff, seeing me, immediately came over and explained to the officer that I was a bona fide member of the House of Commons, and I was immediately allowed to enter the building. I had no pass, and what is more, during the rest of the day I had occasion to come in two or three times.
I know this is a matter of principle; that we members have certain rights and privileges, but in this particular instance I was perfectly willing to forgo mine, as I realized the serious nature of the conference that was being held here. Therefore I was not only very surprised when I was allowed free access to the building, I was very delighted. I must say here that perhaps it may have been the protest that was lodged by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that resulted in the changed attitude. I am not here to debate that point, but I am here to tell you, sir, that I had nothing but the very finest treatment from our protective staff.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Mr. Pouliot:: Before this resolution is carried would it be possible to have a list of all those who enjoy diplomatic immunity in this country? There are other members of the ILO, and members of many international organizations who enjoy the immunities of valises diplomatique, so many that at times I fear they may bring many obnoxious papers in their brief cases. I am not very anxious to have that information. Whenever it is available I shall be thankful to the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will let me have it. A couple of years ago I expressed fear about the immunities extended to members of ILO. In view of the fact that there are so many people from countries behind the iron curtain who are free to come here, and whom we meet with open hearts, I should like to know just how many there are. It may be that I cannot be told who they are.
Then I have another question. Canada is in a unique position with regard to diplomats. I wonder if our country is not the only one in the world where consuls, or the like, are accredited as diplomats, and are on the same footing as full-fledged diplomats. I shall not insist upon an answer tonight. The case to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred, however, is not the first encroachment upon our privileges. That dates back a long time.
When I look at the first two rows in the gallery, behind the clock, I am reminded that
North Atlantic Treaty Organization those two rows used to be at the disposal of members of parliament. But at one time, under another Speaker, we were told that the so-called diplomats, the consuls, had taken possession of it. Just look at it: there is no one there. Still we have to resort to red tape and a lot of formalities if we wish to bring our friends to those vacant seats. The first occupancy of those seats by consuls, who are diplomats nowhere outside of Canada, was the first encroachment of the kind on the privileges of members of parliament. If I come here with my friends, or with anyone for whom I wish to secure a good seat so that he may follow an interesting debate, I have to ask for the permission of Mr. Speaker, because the constables have instructions not to let members of parliament in, unless one goes around.
How many times are those seats occupied by those who are diplomats nowhere outside Canada? Perhaps only once or twice in a session. I have the greatest respect for the parliamentary assistant. He is doing an excellent job, and I said so in his constituency during the last election campaign. I am satisfied to repeat it here.
We should not be too much internationally inclined. I read with some surprise and a certain degree of apprehension the speeches made by Mr. Anthony Eden during his recent tour of the United States. They were like records from the electoral speeches of the late Wendell Willkie, who was the protagonist of One World.
NATO may be a very good thing; but there is one thing more important for us than NATO, and that is our own sovereignty, so that members of parliament have control over expenditures. If we follow NATO closely, then having in mind what has been said by Mr. Eden in many of his speeches during his tour of the United States, we may lose all our sovereignty.


An hon. Member:: Never.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is unwilling to accept that, and I respect his views. But, although I have not Clippings from Mr. Eden's speeches in my pocket, I have them in my office, and I shall show them to him. I am sure he has read them. I was alarmed when I read them-a man with the standing of Anthony Eden., who was not at that time Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the United Kingdom, but one who is the heir-apparent to Winston Churchill, speaking in the same vein as Wendell Willkie did some time ago. Co-operation?-all right; friendliness?-all	right; assistance?-all right;

North Atlantic Treaty Organization provided it does not go to the financing of the whole sterling area. And my hon. friends know what I mean when I say that.
Let us keep ourselves cool in considering all these problems, always facing the possibility that one day Canada may be engulfed in the maelstrom of one world. One world means that there will be a supreme body to control the largest possible number of governments, meaning by that that the so-called governments of many countries will be meaningless. And, knowing how astute are some birds of the British foreign office, I would not be surprised if it were a detour for the British politicians to take control of the prospective one world organization.
I have said enough for tonight, but I shall follow closely the discussions that take place on this matter. I am proud of my country. My country is Canada, in spite of what has been said by the hon. member for Lethbridge, the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Kamloops. Canada is my country; I am proud of it, and I want it to remain my country.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I may say, Mr. Chairman,
that it is my country, too-and I recognized it on two different occasions.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad my hon. friend did.


Jean Lesage: Before I answer the hon.
member for Riviere du Loup-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Temiscouata.


Jean Lesage: Yes; you see he did not need me in his riding at the last election. Perhaps that is why I made such an error. The members of the international staff of the United Nations located in Canada are very few. Practically the only members here are those of the international civil aviation organization with headquarters in Montreal. Occasionally representatives of the international labour office are in Canada, and I do not know if there are still representatives of the international refugee organization located in this country.
The bill to be founded upon this resolution deals with the privileges and immunities to be granted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization itself, its officials and national representatives. As a matter of fact the council sat here in Ottawa in September, but I do not know when it will sit here again. That was the first occasion when we had national representatives of NATO in Canada. The three principal seats of NATO are Washington, Paris and London, and that is where the international staff and the national representatives will be.
At the present time the staff numbers approximately 170. I cannot state how many


will benefit from these diplomatic privileges and immunities. For instance, there are members of the council of deputies, among whom would be our high commissioner in London, who already enjoy diplomatic immunities and privileges.
Contrary to the opinion of my hon. friend from Temiscouata consuls are not entitled to privileges and immunities. Their presence in the diplomatic gallery is not the business of the Department of External Affairs. Consuls are concerned essentially with the protection of the interests of nationals of foreign states, as distinguished from the foreign states themselves. Their archives are immune from seizure and they themselves are not liable to suit in respect of acts performed in their representative capacity, but to that extent only. Their privileges and immunities are quite restricted, and it cannot be said that diplomatic immunities and privileges apply to consuls.
I do not think it would be in order to discuss the purposes and usefulness of NATO at this time as we had a debate on the international situation a short time ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could the parliamentary
assistant tell us something more than he has about the structure of this agreement? Not having it before us, I think it would interest hon. members to know something about its extent, the number of member nations of NATO which have ratified it, its duration and features of that kind.


Jean Lesage: The agreement may be
denounced by any contracting state by giving written notification of denunciation to the United States of America, which will inform all the signatory states of such notification of denunciation. The notification of denunciation shall take effect one year after receipt of the notification by the government of the United States of America which is the depository of the agreement.
Replying to the hon. member for Eglinton, I might state first that there are seven parts to the agreement. Part I contains certain general provisions. In particular it defines those subsidiary bodies of the organization to which the agreement applies.
Part II deals with the status of the organization itself. Article 4 gives it juridical personality. This means that when subsidiary bodies to which the agreement applies wish to conclude contracts, acquire property, et cetera, they will do so in the name of the organization. The immunities and privileges provided by articles 5 to 11 are all normally accorded to international organizations by agreements of this type. There is nothing new in this. An article generally found in

such agreements concerning the treatment of official communications in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes has been omitted. A number of governments object to it, either as being impracticable in their territories or contrary to their national policy. The international telecommunications union has raised objections to provisions of this kind as being contrary to the international telecommunications convention.
Part III covers national representatives and their official staffs and follows approximately the pattern established for the United Nations.
In article 19, dealing with taxation, a rather complicated formula is set out. This can be dealt with and explained in committee.
Part V concerns the settlement of disputes. Parts VI and VII contain formal provisions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank my hon. friend for the statement he has made. Could he tell us when the agreement comes into effect? Does it come into effect after ratification by any given number? If so, how many ratifications have there been to date?


Jean Lesage: It needs six ratifications to come into effect. There are two agreements up for ratification at the present time. There is the agreement concerning the status of NATO forces and the agreement concerning immunities and privileges. The agreement concerning the status of NATO forces* has been ratified by Denmark and I believe by Norway during the last few days. I shall have to inquire if they have also ratified the agreement we are now dealing with.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet upon the very able answers he has given to the questions that have been asked.


Mr. Stick:: Does this resolution deal with the status of United States forces in N ewf oundland ?


Jean Lesage: That subject would be covered by the resolution which is No. 5 on the order paper. The present resolution does not apply to forces at all, it concerns only the organization as an international entity, its international staff, and national representatives.


Alphonse Fournier: There is another resolution covering that.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any difference between the status of the parties to this agreement and the status of the members of the United Nations? In other words, is there any difference in the treatment accorded to the two groups of nations? In the second place would this agreement apply to Greece and Turkey if they join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? In the speech from the throne
*(See also page 867.)
North Atlantic Treaty Organization there is a paragraph saying that the house is to be asked to approve the ratification of a protocol to enable an invitation to be extended to Greece and Turkey to join the North Atlantic alliance. I am wondering whether this agreement would also extend to these two nations.


Jean Lesage: I believe I answered the hon. member's first question completely and at length when I made a statement before we went into committee on the resolution. I gave the differences between the immunities and privileges to be granted under this agreement and those which are usually granted to the international staff and national representatives in the United Nations. So far as the second question is concerned, it is surely a hypothetical one. May I remind the hon. member that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when speaking in the house two weeks ago, I believe, said he was not sure when this protocol for the acceptance of Turkey and Greece in NATO would be studied by this house because he thought it would be more advisable to wait until countries like the United States, France and the United Kingdom had approved of it before we did.
It is clear that Greece and Turkey might, under the regular principles of international law, accede to this agreement but only after they have become members of NATO, that is to say, after the protocol of accession of Turkey and Greece to NATO has been ratified by all existing members of NATO, which number twelve at present.


Howard Charles Green: Does the agreement provide that additional nations may become parties thereto?


Jean Lesage: No. Under international law it is not necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I tried to follow the parliamentary assistant in what he was saying, and he may have answered this question, but is it clear that no immunities to be granted under this law will exceed the kind of immunities that are granted to members representing other types of international organizations to which he has referred tonight?


Jean Lesage: The answer is no, they will not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the parliamentary assistant say something more with respect to taxation, particularly income tax? I noticed that in the list of subjects of the agreement that he read there was a reference to taxation. He said of course that the matter would be discussed in committee on the bill. May I ask if there are income tax exemptions provided under the terms of this bill, and if so

North Atlantic Treaty Organization do they differ in any way from the exemptions accorded to representatives of the other international bodies? If there is any difference, what is it?


Jean Lesage: It is quite a complicated formula which has been adopted for NATO, and far from going beyond the usual exemptions which are granted it does not go as far because it leaves to the countries of NATO the possibility of making an agreement with the organization itself under which agreement any country may pay its own nationals who are members of the NATO international staff and tax them wherever they are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It works both ways.


Jean Lesage: It works both ways but the choice is left to any particular country in NATO who wishes to pay its own nationals, which does not exist in the United Nations organization. The right of the individual countries to tax their own nationals in the organization is preserved under certain conditions, while it is not under the United Nations organization agreement.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sorry I had to leave the chamber for a few minutes. Perhaps the question I am about to ask has been covered, but I should like to know what is the reference in the word "thereunder" in the resolution. It could refer to "treaty organization" or "status". It says, "That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve the agreement on the status", or it could refer to "treaty organization". Does "thereunder" refer only to "status"? Does it mean the obligations, duties and rights of Canada under "status" or does it mean the obligations, duties and rights of Canada under "treaty organization"? What is the meaning of "thereunder"?


Jean Lesage: It is clearly under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It has obligations, duties and rights of Canada under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and especially the agreement on immunities and privileges, which will be a schedule to the bill to be introduced in a few moments.


John Horne Blackmore: If that is the case, and I had a suspicion that perhaps it was, then one difficulty I see is that this measure could have more meaning within it than appears on the surface. Just to give the parliamentary assistant, who by the way is doing a most excellent job-


Jean Lesage: I am very sorry. I misunderstood my hon. friend's question and I want to correct myself. It is the obligations, duties and rights of Canada under the agreement itself, the agreement which will be before the house. The resolution cannot go any further.


John Horne Blackmore: The agreement will be-


Jean Lesage: A schedule to the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: When it comes before the house.


Jean Lesage: So it cannot go any further than that.


John Horne Blackmore: To give the parliamentary assistant an idea of what is in my mind, I have seen three or four statements in the press to the effect that somebody or other in Canada around Ottawa was aiming to make NATO a federation. If that is the case, then I think probably this whole proposal requires a great deal of careful scrutiny. Just as an illustration, I do not think that forty years ago you could have got 25 per cent of all the Canadian people to agree to a federation of the members of the British commonwealth and empire. I doubt if you could get five per cent of the people of Canada today to agree to a federation of the British empire where all member states would belong to the same race as we, have the same general point of view and ideas, and have a brotherhood community. If we refuse to go into a federation of states like that why in the world should we contemplate with any calmness at all the proposition of going into a federation with a group of nations such as are in NATO? That is why I am concerned about this whole matter. I am always suspicious that somebody is trying to sneak up on us under the guise of ah international agreement. The parliamentary assistant will see now what was behind my question. If it refers to "status"-


Jean Lesage: It does not refer to "status". It refers to the "agreement on the status . . ."


John Horne Blackmore: But if it refers to the treaty itself that would be a different matter entirely. I think the parliamentary assistant can see that.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Pearson) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 15, to provide for privileges and immunities in respect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Annuities Act to increase

the maximum annuity which may be purchased under the act from twelve hundred dollars up to twenty-four hundred dollars and to provide greater flexibility in the provisions of the act relating to the issue, conversion and amendment of annuity contracts and payments thereunder.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Will the minister make his statement before Your Honour leaves the chair?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government has decided to introduce an amendment to this act at this special session.
Before attempting to outline the purposes and effect of the amendments to the Government Annuities Act which are put forward in the bill, I thought hon. members would be interested in a brief resume of the provisions of the act and its operation.
The Government Annuities Act was first enacted in 1908. It was initially administered by the Department of Trade and Commerce. In 1912. the administration was transferred to the Post Office Department; and in 1922 the administration of the act was entrusted to the Department of Labour, which has administered the act since that time.
The object of the act is to encourage systematic voluntary saving for old age security by providing facilities for that purpose. This is clearly set forth in the preamble to the act which reads as follows:
Whereas it is in the public interest that habits of thrift be promoted and that the people of Canada be encouraged and aided thereto so that provision be made for old age; and whereas it is expedient that further facilities be afforded for the attaining of the said objectives.
Considering, therefore, the purpose of the act, to promote voluntary saving for old age security, it is appropriate that this bill to extend the facilities afforded by the act should be considered by this house at a time when parliament has under consideration legislation making provision for payment of an old age pension to Canadian residents 70 years of age or over.
The purchase of an annuity under the act is effected by means of an annuity contract issued by the Minister of Labour to the purchaser upon acceptance of his application therefor.
Two general types of annuity contract are issued, namely deferred annuity contracts and immediate annuity contracts.
Under deferred annuity contracts, the annuity vests and goes into payment on a monthly basis at a future fixed date. The purchase price may be paid in a lump sum, or by monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual instalments running from the date of the contract to the date the contract matures.
The purchaser may select one of three amiuity plans:
Government Annuities Act
A deferred life plan under which the annuity is payable for the life of the annuitant only.
A deferred guaranteed plan under which the annuity is payable for the life of the annuitant and for a guaranteed period of 5, 10, 15 or 20 years in any event.
A deferred last survivor plan under which an annuity is payable on two lives, generally husband and wife. The annuity is payable to both jointly as long as both live, and thereafter to the survivor for life.
Under immediate annuity contracts, the purchase price is paid in full with the application for the annuity. The annuity goes into payment one month later following acceptance of the application. The purchaser may select any of the three annuity plans which I have already mentioned.
Apart from individual contracts of the types I have described, group contracts may be entered into with an employer for payment of annuities to employees registered under the contract to underwrite an employee retirement pension plan applicable to employees in his establishment.
The purchase price of annuities and the amount of the annuity payable are calculated upon the basis of mortality tables approved by the governor in council for use under the act and the rate of interest allowed on the moneys paid on the purchase price of annuities and in calculating the amounts of annuity payable. This rate of interest is fixed by regulation approved by the governor in council.
The costs of administration of the act are paid out of moneys voted annually by parliament to the Department of Labour for that purpose. This year it is approximately $800,000.
There were at March 31, 1951, some 147,514 individual annuity contracts under administration. At the same date group contracts were under administration covering 128,299 employees. The total net premium payments received from the inception of operations under the act to March 31, 1951, amounted to approximately $653 million, of which over 50 per cent has been received in the last five years' operations. The large increase in premium payments in this latter period is attributable in very large measure to the rapid growth in recent years of employee retirement pension plans, which have been underwritten by group contracts issued under the act.
As indicating the rapid expansion of this phase of annuity operations over the past ten years, in the fiscal year 1940-41 the total net premium payments received were approximately $19 million; payments to

Government Annuities Act annuitants and purchasers were approximately $9 million; the number ol individual contracts under administration was approximately 58,780; the number of employees covered by group contracts was approximately 7,000. The corresponding figures for the fiscal year 1950-51 were: net premium payments received, approximately $60 million; payments to annuitants and purchasers, approximately $26 million; number of individual contracts in effect, 147,514; number of employees covered by group contracts 128,299.
The purposes of the proposed amendments are to provide greater facilities for the benefit of purchasers and annuitants under the act, and to take care of some difficulties which have developed in the administration of the act.
The following matters are covered in the amendments to the act contained in the *bill-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock. Move the
adjournment.


Mr. Drew:: Why not finish the statement?


Alphonse Fournier: He has about two more pages.


George Alexander Drew: Why not finish it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The amount of the maximum annuity which may be purchased is increased from $1,200 to $2,400 per annum. The amount of the minimum annuity which may be purchased is increased from $10 to $60 per annum. Provision is made for the issue of three additional types of annuity contract:
1.	A contract for the payment of a straight term annuity-that is to say, an annuity for a specified period of years not exceeding twenty years.
2.	A contingent life annuity contract-that is to say, a contract under which an annuity is payable to one person for life, with continuation to a second person on the death of the first annuitant.
3.	A contract providing for the payment of a combination of a term annuity with certain other authorized types of annuity. This will permit the issue of a contract which provides for payment of a maximum annuity for a specified term of years and will thereafter pay an annuity in a lesser amount for the remainder of the life of the annuitant. An annuity of this type commencing at the annuitant's retirement age, complemented by the old age pension payment received by the annuitant under the Old Age Security Act, will provide an over-all retirement pension of a uniform amount from date of retirement.
My colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) outlined

that in his introduction to his bill. The provisions of the act authorizing the making of a group annuity contract with an employer to underwrite an employee pension plan are broadened in such manner as will permit a contract of this nature to be entered into either with the employer or any other person administering the plan.
The amendments also authorize greater latitude for amendment of contracts in proper cases, and the substitution of new contracts for the accommodation of purchasers and annuitants, and to provide for continuity of group contracts underwriting employee pension plans. It is proposed, also, that authority be given to make regulations providing cash surrender privileges in respect of annuity contracts. The new legislation requires that a review of mortality experience under the act be made at least once in every five years, in order that the mortality tables in use may be kept in line with mortality trends and experience.
The basis to be used in fixing the interest rate payable in respect of annuity contracts is also defined in the amendments. This basis is the average rate of return on long term government of Canada bonds.
The section of the act dealing with the manner in which the government annuities account is to be set up, and kept in balance, has been redrafted for purposes of greater clarity.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I move the adjournment of the debate?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall deal with the motion to set up the select committee on radio broadcasting, and the resolution preceding a measure to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936. Then the resolution concerning the establishment of the agricultural products board, and the resolution-


Howard Charles Green: What was the last?


Alphonse Fournier: The resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture concerning the establishment of the agricultural products board. Then, we would resume the debate on this motion of the Minister of Labour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In connection with the first two items, may I ask if the government notice of motion to set up the committee on radio broadcasting will be called in advance of resolution No. 11 on today's order paper, which is the measure to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.

Business of the House


Alphonse Fournier: The first item will be the setting up of this committee under government notices of motions. Then probably the second notice of motion will stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Probably-can that not be definite?


Alphonse Fournier: I am not sure whether the Prime Minister will be here all tomorrow afternoon.


George Alexander Drew: You mean the one in regard to-


Alphonse Fournier: The defence expenditures committee; that will be put over because we want to try to discuss the broadcasting motion and resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So the one respecting defence expenditures will stand tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: Right.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
867
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 9, 1951